User talk:Orlady/Archive 21

Bircham International University

Hi Orlady, I have done some edits at the Bircham International University article. You have systematically undone all of them, despite of my efforts to provide some input and discussion in the talk page. You affirm that I have no credibility. At Wikipedia credibility is the direct consequence of the sources of information used, not on whom the author is. A long editing history at Wikipedia may demonstrate commitment from the editor or proficiency in dealing with Wiki rules, but not actual credibility. The fact that all wikipedia editors are anonymous users without identified credentials and qualifications make the credibility of editors a not much applicable aspect for any editor. It is then the facts that should be considered.

You have deleted a some proposed edits, even one that was corrected by the Oregon DOE web that you now linked to a wayback machine. The Oregon DOE web is not working all the time, but when it works you should check and find out that the references to Kenya Institute are deleted, so they should be in the article. Use the way back on a closer in time look and you may check this out.

Anyway, I see some discrepancies in the way an article should talk about any institution. The institution should be defined based on facts, then explain what it is, what it does, where it is, when it was founded. For these facts two sources are relevant: John Bear and Spain ICEX ( A Spain gobernment body that has been considered a promotional one by editors with out knowledge about the institution). I will explain more about the ICEX later and provide English ref for verification. The article more or less does so, but it is redundant sometimes. Also, any comments and opinios should be reserved to the Controversy section, which is, by the way, a good idea.

I kindly ask for some trust. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridsupport (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tony Robinson (American football)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

my edits to the Northland International University Wikipedia page

Dear Orlady,

Thanks for your note and for the info regarding the editing of articles on Wikipedia. I'm a long time reader here, but since I'm brand new to the world of editing, I read through the guidelines you recommended to me on my talk page. You are correct, I am currently on staff at Northland International University, so of course I'm strongly interested in the contents of our Wikipedia presence. I have every desire to cooperate with Wikipedia's policies and to be clear about my identity. I hope you will consider the following few thoughts--I appreciate your time and attention.

First, you probably already saw Northland's talk page and realized there have been some significant editing wars along with back-and-forth dialogue in recent months. We find ourselves no strangers to controversy these days! I won't bore you with the details, but in general, some of our historic supporters were displeased with changes we've made at our school and have been publicly very clear about their dissatisfaction. This outcry has inevitably led to widespread slanting of the truth since many of these people have neither visited our campus nor spoken directly with our leadership. That's why I was surprised to read some of the inflammatory comments on our Wikipedia page. It's quite possible that my edits swung the pendulum too far the other direction, so please feel free to assist in maintaining neutrality.

Regarding my edits from yesterday, two in particular stand out. I would like to appeal to your sense of objectivity to help remedy the situation. Under the section on "Change in articles of faith," the reader clearly sees that we adopted a temporary set of articles until our final statement of faith was completed (which happened about a month ago). All I'm asking is that the information be updated to reflect our new statement of faith, and that perhaps the article link to the appropriate page of our website (which was contained in my edit from yesterday).

The other edit in question relates to the section under "local church ministry." For some reason, there is an insistence among some to accuse our school of creating a "Christian rock band." Again, I won't bore you with the details, but this comment is not only inaccurate, but clearly a disparaging remark towards our school. That's why my edit used the term "worship team," a description that is accurate, universal, and as neutral as possible. I'm appealing to you simply to replace the wording.

It would be great to reinstate the five-fold purpose of our "local church ministry" endeavors, so please let me know if there is some form of documentation that would help in that regard. I really believe those particular points articulate well what we're trying to accomplish through local churches (as indicated in my footnote citing a recent powerpoint presentation to pastors).

Again, thanks for your time and for your note.

Best regards,

Trevor E. Gearhart Vice President of Enrollment, Northland International University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.161.130 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful note. It is clear that Northland is the subject of controversy these days, but the warring over the article actually has been pretty mild in comparison with some other articles I watch.

Since reading your message, I've edited the verbiage in Northland International University about the "Christian rock band", but I've not made the other changes.

A general problem I have with the article is a lack of sources for verifiability. Wikipedia can't be a publisher of original content (see WP:NOT and WP:OR); everything reported in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be based on content previously published somewhere else (see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources). The Northland website tells about the adoption of the temporary articles of faith, but I didn't see anything on the website telling about the process of formulating and adopting the new articles. Thus, your statements about the new Statement of Faith being completed in early fall and its availability on the school website were not supported by the website as a source. (Additionally, the language about the "thorough vetting process" seemed to me to a bit too self-congratulatory; an encyclopedia ought to say something more to the effect that the new statement was formulated collaboratively by the school's administration, Bible faculty, and board members.) The content about the traveling worship band (a.k.a. "Christian rock band") also is not supported by reliable sources; it's mainly supported by commentary on somebody's blog, which is not an acceptable source. It seems like a bit of information that's worth including, but it would be nice to have a decent source. (Can you supply one?)

I didn't like the content about the five-fold purpose of the "local church ministry" because it seemed like promotion or proselytizing. The objective information that this is part of Northland's program is something an encyclopedia should include, but content about "the natural accountability and unity of the Body of Christ," "like-minded pastors who have a heart for mentoring," etc., does not impress me as encyclopedic. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence, Orlady--I've been away from the office traveling since we last corresponded.

Your comments above make complete sense and I agree that our page was definitely leaning toward promotion. I will do my best to avoid that in the future. I have some thoughts I'll present to you later when I have a little more time. For now, I noticed that an unidentified editor linked the "worship band" wording to the Wikipedia "Christian rock" article, so I deleted that link. Let me know if you have further input on that topic. Will get back to you soon, and thanks again for your helpful recommendations.

Trev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgearhartwi (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA

I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates. —sroc 💬 08:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI re user PBS

User PBS has not taken on board the advice given at his RFC. Search Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night for his contributions of late and you'll see he's back to his old, disruptive ways. Although he hasn't made any changes to the article, he's like a cancer and quite frankly, I'm getting very sick of it. Parrot of Doom 12:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for improving my DYK nomination of Florence Fuller. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking an Unblock, Will You Consider It?

Hi Orlady, I'm permanently blocked but I believe I never got a fair shake, so I write to ask you have a look at it and consider unblocking. I come to you pretty much randomly. I decided to ask someone beginning with the letter "O" and I went to the list of active administrators. Right now I am able to write here because I'm editing via raw IP and signing my user name. I know that is "block evasion" but my talkpage and email were cut off, and I feel I've no other honest alternative.

I looked at your userpage for a moment. I think I was to Oak Ridge once or twice as a child. I lived in mountainous western North Carolina for a while. I did an academic business paper once where in part I looked at employment statistics and educational opportunities in Mountain City, Tennessee. I noticed you made the Uncasville entry. The Mohegan Sun Casino is one of my favorite places to go in that area. I like the entertainment options, saw Collective Soul there once. It's cool to decompress for a day or two in a shiny resort environment like that. I like that the tribe gets money out of that, for social programs and such, and to help their disadvantaged.

I consider myself a good contributor to the encyclopedia. I created several articles, most of which are the #1 Google result by now, and extensively edited many more. This was mainly in my original account. In my new account I had little time before getting blocked but I at least authored the new article Rain City Superhero Movement.

In May 2012 I was no-warn/no-diffs/no-explanation blocked by Timotheus Canens. He clicked one of his Twinkle buttons which generated a link to WP:SOCK. I never socked. I switched from my original account to this, never going back, because of privacy concerns. This is the no-fault basis described by WP:CLEANSTART, which is policy. I was 100% up-front about this from my first edit in this account, if you look. [1] I have never had any other accounts (well, I think I accidentally made one intending it to be WikiMEDIA, which I thought I needed to upload some pictures, but I never "edited" with that, just uploaded and described two pictures). I didn't handle the block very well. I wasn't experienced with blocks. I was angered a bit because of no explanation and I felt my honesty ("sock") was attacked. Timotheus never explained himself for more than a year, but five or six WP:AN/ANI regulars descended on my page, haranguing me, each with his own theory. It was awful and I didn't know to whom I had to answer. All? Suspicion reigned and people presumed Timotheus, "sock puppet investigator," had secret evidence.

Well, the story goes on from there, but I shouldn't write a novel on your talkpage. If I've told you enough that you'll consider researching my case, please unblock my talkpage and ask me anything you like. I will not mislead you. To date, no evidence has ever been provided of socking, it's all too often catcallers from WP:AN/ANI blabbing and criticizing and running their mouths. I'd sign my username plainly but technical reasons mean I have to type it as below. Certainly no offense if you turn me down politely, the last administrator I asked said "sorry, I don't want to get involved" and the one before that said "sorry, I don't have the time."

C . C
o . o
l . s
t . m
o . i
n . c

Sorry, but no dice. If you want to be reinstated, you need to try to convince the administrators who blocked you. And do consider that you wouldn't have been accused of sockpuppetry in the first place if your behavior had not been problematic. --Orlady (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The administrator that blocked me will not speak to me, and has never spoken to me. My "problematic" behavior consisted of roughly criticizing a bully who had pushed around another editor for two years as "provocateur." It surely doesn't warrant a permanent block and neither does it make me a "sock." I think you are wrong and don't understand fully, but thank you for at least responding.

C . C
o . o
l . s
t . m
o . i
n . c

Template:Did you know nominations/National Kid

Orlady, could you give this another check to see whether the changes by the creator are sufficient to address the issues you raised, and make a final decision based on what was done? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Promote a hook?

Hi, I had a DYK approved a few days ago, but the hook has yet to be promoted (with other stuff promoted in the meantime, at T:TDYK, see Katherine Ritvo. Not sure who is promoting hooks these days, but looks like a labor shortage over at DYK generally, so I'm pinging a few people about this. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Editing

Hello Orlady, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 12:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2008 Karnataka-Tamil Nadu hooch tragedy

Orlady, the ALT hook you requested in your review has been provided, and some editing was done by the nominator. Can you please check to see whether your concerns have been addressed, and the hook properly supported? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK query

Hi, I've not been involved with DYK for quite some time now and am out of touch. I'm currently working on William Beach Thomas and wonder if a hook could be made of his quote concerning his time as a war correspondent - ""I was thoroughly and deeply ashamed of what I had written." (There are a couple of important additions to go in there yet, including that some people think him to have been a model for one of the characters of Evelyn Waugh). I'd appreciate your thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea. For a hook, I suggest: "... that William Beach Thomas said he was "thoroughly and deeply ashamed" of his writings as a war correspondent during World War I?" You have until 17 November to nominate it. --Orlady (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good, thanks. I've written/expanded a few that could have been DYK candidates but, well, I couldn't be bothered. I've also done a few that should be pushed through GA but, as you know, I spend far too much time reverting people here! - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ants

I wonder if you could have a look at this DYK nomination. The matter relates to how text incorporated from an outside source into an article should be attributed. Although I am not directly concerned with the article in question or its DYK nomination, I am involved in a joint DYK nomination with the same editor (he has written one article and I have written the other) which has yet to be reviewed. It may have similar problems and at this stage I could withdraw that nomination. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks

This user has contributed to Edward M. Burke good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Edward M. Burke, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This user has contributed to Joseph Berrios good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Joseph Berrios, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet of Levineps

Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Due to computer problems, I'm not using my admin account; would you be able to help with something when you get the chance? Platinum Star is always having problems with IP editors for this thing and that, and I've been helping him with blocks and protections for a long time. Would you be able to help with this issue that he raises? Nyttend backup (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

IP Editor

I'm open for constructive suggestions, so I'll make sure to not use any "mild insults" again.

Regarding this editor, this isn't the first time he insults me. What I don't like about him is, other than poking fun at my name, him claiming that he's always correct when in fact he isn't. Platinum Star (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I requested a name change, so hopefully this can stop him from making fun of my name. Also, I personally believe that these three articles might need weeks of semi protection if the editor continues to edit war. As per the edit history, he has been claiming that Uni will air LPA in the afternoon (no source to provide that at all), and QPTR at 7pm. While Uni did confirm QPTR (source can be found in the article), "Muy pronto" is NOT the same as "7pm/6c" (again, false and still unsourced). I hope this helps. Platinum Star (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

All of us will just have to watch what happens next -- and take appropriate action when needed. --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

NRHPstats

I don't know if you saw this reply or not, but I think maybe I'm not communicating what the NRHPstats script does well enough. You've asked for a method of finding the one or two untagged/unassessed/NRIS-only articles in a large county of 100+, and that is exactly what this script does. If you add

importScript('User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHPstats.js')

to User:Orlady/vector.js (or to User:Orlady/common.js if you want to be able to use it on other skins), any time you visit an NRHP county page, a yellow box will be displayed above the table. In that box, the information from the Progress page will be displayed. If you scroll over the text that says how many untagged/unassessed/NRIS-only articles there are, the script will tell you exactly which articles fall into those categories via a tooltip.

I see that you haven't added this script to any of your javascript files, so maybe if I'm still failing to explain the script properly, just add it there and see first-hand what I'm talking about. I wouldn't dream of going through an entire county just searching for a few articles.. this script reduces the time it takes to "clean up" the county drastically. Let me know if you have any trouble with it, though, or if this really isn't what you wanted. Sorry for the confusion.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I totally missed the mouse-over function. --Orlady (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Doctor's Building

Thanks for the pagemove and disambiguation; I had no clue there was another article with functionally the same title. Are you sure that "Doctor's Building" is the right title here? The description on the page from the Nashville Tennessean makes me suspect that it should be Doctors', i.e. it's a typo and the page should have the same title (other than disambiguation) as the Cincinnati building. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you. Had it been anyone else, I would have assumed that they were going around doing this kind of housekeeping, but since you're in Tennessee, I thought you were perhaps just working on some in-state project. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sam & Cat

"Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sam & Cat. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please heed the note that advises contributors "Don't add Cameron Ocasio unless and until there is reliably sourced official announcement." Orlady (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)" Funny.. cuz I was right. And how was Glozell allowed to slide? She was listed as a cast member which was totally untrue, she lied about it. Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Violence against doctors in China

Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this one, as it requires a good judge of what is appropriate for the main page and what is not. The reviewer had concerns about it being on the main page, and I trust your opinion on whether these are justified or not. It's also an older nom, and it would be nice to get this settled, or at least moving toward a resolution. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, thank you so much for looking it over. I think it's back to you now, after the comment by the nominator, as to whether it should be withdrawn or not. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Tagging NRIS-only articles

In reviewing the most recent run of the bot to tag NRIS-only articles, I saw several articles where you placed the NRIS-only tag manually, and the bot removed it (I'm too lazy to find/link the articles, but look at the bot's contributions if those pages are no longer on your watchlist). This is not the first time this has happened, and I fear you don't understand how the bot works. You can't just tag any article with {{NRIS-only}} and expect the template to stay there. If there is more than one unique reference on the page in the form of an inline citation, the bot will think that article is no longer NRIS-only and remove the tag. Period. That means that even an article which uses NRISref and also cites, say, the Focus database or NRHP.com–even though we humans recognize these as NRIS mirrors–is counted as having multiple sources. You've tagged a few articles which fall into this category. The best thing I can tell you to do for these cases is to either fix the article yourself by adding an actual second (or third or fourth..) source to the article or to remove the NRIS mirror and leave only NRISref as the sole source so that the bot won't untag it. If you don't do one of these things, the bot will continue to remove your tags, and you'll be doing work for naught.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the tag I added on John McCroskey House. I fixed it by removing the nonworking linking to NPS Focus. --Orlady (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There was also Sweetwater Inn. I didn't take the time to find the ones from previous runs I came across, though. Maybe they've been fixed now.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold?

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been unusually warm here today, but you can bet it's warmer where you are! Thanks for the good wishes. --Orlady (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ed Westcott

Were you going to take this article to GA? It looks good enough. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Youngest British soldier in World War I

Orlady, I was wondering whether you would be able to take a look at this one. The nominator and reviewer appear to be at loggerheads both on the nomination and talk pages. As I'm not at all sure the X icon is warranted, I don't want this closed until someone with good DYK experience and with a good sense of article scope has taken a look. Many thanks; I hope you had a great holiday and will have a wonderful New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

European University

Hi Orlady: Sorry, didn't mean to override, but I amended your edit on the comment noting ACBSP's purview as a programmatic accreditor. I felt that it was over emphasizing an established fact, as relevant links would provide the information. Hope my edit is okay, and that you are agreeable. Thanks. By the way, Season's Greetings!.. Audit Guy (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orlady! As written to Auditguy on his talk page, i left my comments about this section in the page's talk page. Please do advise if you think that is irrelevant. All the best Swissjane (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:European University. --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Orlady, Thanks for the review and revised edits on European University! Audit Guy (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Orlady, The IACBE accreditation of business programs covers both the Swiss Campuses, not just Geneva. They indicate this as "European University - Switzerland". Is it Okay to reflect it as such? Audit Guy (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orlady, if you can get around to this, I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi orlady, would like to seek your input at EU Talk:European University (Academic Programs). Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Next time you're at WP DYK

Queue 6 - the policy of how to handle the DYK templates on these could use some input either direction from whoever is around today. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

CEEMAN

Hi Orlady, I've done some clean up of the source links. Could you please have a look and see if it's ok to remove the Wikipedia:Bare URLs template? Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hardin Valley, TN

Hi, Orlady. I found something you may want to take a look at, in List of settlements in Tennessee by per capita income it lists Hardin Valley in Knox County a CDP in which i don't belive it is. --ACase0000 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Invalid edit by an IP. I fixed it. Glad you caught it! --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Orlady would you be willing to help me Create an article on Hardin Valley community? --ACase0000 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I won't help you. I don't believe that "Hardin Valley community" is a WP:Notable place that deserves to be documented in a Wikipedia article. --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

However, you might be interested in creating Hardin Valley Academy for the high school in that area. High schools are generally presumed to be notable (although notability still needs to be demonstrated by citing sources), and that particular school does not yet have an article. Related articles exist at Knox County Schools and Karns, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will look in to that and plus GNIS doesn't list it as Populated place. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Big Data (band)

Orlady, can I ask you to please take a look at this review? You have an excellent sense of when an article needs more coverage even though it's above the minimum 1500 prose characters, and the original reviewer and I differ on this particular issue. It would be very helpful to have someone of your experience to express an opinion; I'm certainly prepared to take my lumps if I'm wrong. (The only reason I intervened was that I was looking for a hook to promote, but felt I couldn't promote the hook with the article as it was.) The hook sourcing issue is not the issue at hand here, though it does (as I have noted) need fixing. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Carnegie Library at Fisk

Grr. you're right. The pic I took was of the building on the other side of the quad (see the two in the Birdseye view here). Andrew Jameson (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Baptists in the United States

Category:Baptists in the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hope you're around and can fix Queue 4 in the next 15 minutes

Orlady, I noticed that you were working on Prep 3, and I'm hoping you can fix Queue 4 before it posts at the top of the hour.

For some reason, the entire set of DYKmake and DYKnoms is wrong: it's from a prior set. I've posted the correct set at WT:DYK, so it should be a fairly quick fix. If you see this and can do it in time, many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we lucked out: passing admins and pingers galore got the job done. As long as I'm posting this, I thought I'd mention I've just replied to you on Template:Did you know nominations/San Quintín Volcanic Field to ask you what the next step on this nomination should be, since you're most familiar with the state of the article and whether it's main-pageable in its current state. Please let me know there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gary Loveman

Hi, you promoted this, despite PFHLai's reasonable suggestion that the hook is kept until Valentine's day. Would it be possible to keep it until then? Thanks, Matty.007 19:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought the idea of saving it for Valentine's Day was lame. Few people over the age of 11 would see an interesting Valentine's Day connection in the fact that a businessman has the name "Loveman". --Orlady (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought it would be nice to have the word "Love" show up a few more times on MainPage that day, regardless of the article it links to. But never mind. Anyway, please consider the use of ALT1 instead of the (boring) original hook. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

University help requested

Just curious: could you point me to an ideal university article? All of the FA university articles I've checked were promoted years ago, and they generally seem to have problems that would never be accepted by FAC/FAR today. I've today been emailed by someone from IUPUI (the person in question knows the Wikipedian in Residence at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, whom I've met) who wants to update the school's article while respecting COI and other project standards. The person in question has text that their marketing director wrote and wants advice and COI-obeying assistance in getting the article improved; I'm trying and failing to find a great university article that I could use to demonstrate how the marketing director's text doesn't match the way we write. As far as I know, the person who emailed me doesn't have an account; I'm going to do my best to assist in account creation if asked, of course minding WP:OUTING and other standards. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for McKissack & McKissack

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation of Anglican priests: RFC as followup to CFD

You contributed to the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 2#Category:English_Anglican_priests, which I have closed today as "no consensus". (This notice is being sent all participants in that debate.)

Apart from the disagreement in that particular case, there seemed to be no broader agreement on how to categorise of Anglican priests. So I have opened a Requests for Comments discussion about it, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RFC:_Categorisation_of_Anglican_priests, where your contribution would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bethesda Presbyterian Church (Russellville, Tennessee)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Boeing RC-1

Orlady, there is a response to your latest comments on this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

*drools in full aviation fanboy mode* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to weigh in on this one, fanboy! --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Valley View DYK

Good morning Orlady, I know it would be a bit of an inconvenience, but would it be possible to pull Template:Did you know nominations/Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) from the Prep 2 queue and return it to the nominations page? I'm still working to locate an image for the hook, and forgot to note this on the article's nomination template. (I know this is especially grievous given the incident with my image for 2014 Elk River chemical spill). If this is possible, I'd greatly appreciate it, and I apologize for the trouble. I'll cross post this request with other DYK administrators. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kerala Soil Museum

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Violence against doctors in China

Harrias ^talk 08:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

TN question

So I'm hoping to make a long day trip to Nashville on Monday in order to get NR photos, and of course I have to stop along the way to get photos in smaller communities. Some spots on the Robertson County list have unclear locations, and Google has been thoroughly unhelpful. Do you know of anything from the state government that could help, beyond what's at WP:NRHP help? I tried checking Focus for the biggest problem, the Mansfield Cheatham House in Springfield, but they don't have anything digitised. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As you've observed, NPS Focus doesn't have any Tennessee content online except for Multiple Property Submissions, and even a lot of those links are broken. The state historian's office posts new listings on a webpage, but they have an annoying habit of taking the content offline as soon as they post the next set of new listings. Many times I've reached a total dead end when I've tried to dig up decent info about one of those notorious NRHP sub-stubs.

I've never been to Robertson County (other than driving through on the Interstate once or twice), so I can't supply any local knowledge. There don't seem to be any active Wikipedia contributors from that area, either. There are (or have been) several active contributors in Nashville, but they haven't done much of any work on Robertson County topics.

As for the Mansfield Cheatham House, I found it on Google Maps using the lat-long on the county list. It seems to be a large estate in town in Springfield; the house is set a good distance back from the street. My searches indicate that the house is associated with one or more members of the 19th century Cheatham family, which was prominent in Springfield (see Category:People from Springfield, Tennessee, which I created a few hours ago). I'll see if I can find out anything more about it. On the whole, Springfield looks like it could be a productive destination for photographing historic properties. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. WP:NRHP help mentions the annoying habit, but as the link is broken, I wondered if they might have changed their procedures. I'm trying for 9 of the 26 sites (the rest are way too scattered to justify detours from my main route) so I was trying to confirm locations lest I print maps with bad coords. After I left you this note, I went around on Street View and found what I believe to be the house — NRIS coords placed it on Fifth, rather than the Seventh given in the address line — but I wasn't completely confident, so I appreciate your confirmation of it. And I can definitely sympathise on the absence of sources — Ohio's presence is among the weakest, and although I have a good printed guide to NR locations statewide, a lot's been listed since it was published, and they're missing some sites that were listed before publication. Of course, I can often get documents from other sources, but not always; the Adams Covered Bridge is missing from the NR guide and from my copy of Ohio's Covered Bridges. Perhaps I'll be able to expand it, though; I just now went looking for the county history on Google that wasn't digitised, in order to make my point more strongly, and to my surprise they've digitised it. Does Tennessee have good county histories of this sort? I've become heavily reliant on them for Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture can be a good source. I've found the Google Book Touring the Middle Tennessee Backroads useful for some topics in that part of the state; I recommend that you look at it before your trip (it provides driving directions, although they are often sort of vague, and the section that starts on page 49 covers Montgomery and Robertson counties). The Tennessee Department of Tourism has some good historical information on its websites. Check out http://tntrailsandbyways.com/ for their tourism "trails" around Nashville; there are also some Civil War sites in the area you will be traversing that would be included on their Civil War page at http://www.tnvacation.com/civil-war/places/trail-markers/ . (You can never guess what will turn out to be a Civil War site. Recently I managed to take a pathetic two-sentence NRIS-only stub about a church up to "start" level after discovering that the church was a military hospital during the Civil War.) Most or all Tennessee counties have a "Goodspeed's History", written in the late 1800s and available online on various genealogy websites (do a Google search for "Goodspeed history" and the county name). The quality and usefulness of the Goodspeed info is highly variable.

Enjoy your trip! --Orlady (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I actually don't think I'll be using these sources — I have super-detailed atlases for many states (Kentucky, for example), but nothing for Tennessee, as I've only once visited the state in the last decade. As a result, I'll be taking some of the little back roads in Kentucky, but I'll be staying on the highways until I get in the city, and then getting sites in the more concentrated areas. Not enough time for rural plantations (I'd love to see the Hermitage or the Natchez Trace, but both are too far), since I have a 250-mile-each-way drive. But yes, I know what you mean about "anonymous" Civil War sites — take our two-sentence stub on the diminutive Roberts Chapel near Lexington KY; you'd never know that it was a wartime hospital unless you read the nomination. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to say — see my edits at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee). My career goal is a position at a small college, not a research university, but the one thing I'll miss at a small college is the immense resources of a premier research library; only a research library would have print subscriptions to now-out-of-print publications like the Tennessee Anthropologist if they're out-of-state. If you plan to work on an article about an archaeological site, let me know if you'd like me to try to find additional information. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I could use a little more TN help if you know the answer. While on my trip, I photographed several historical markers that didn't bear any dates. Is there some way to look up when a marker was posted, so I can know whether it's old enough to be {{PD-US-no notice}}? I was hoping for something comparable to http://www.in.gov/history/markers/3818.htm or http://www.remarkableohio.org, but I can't find anything online. Noticing that markers typically bore two-digit numbers at the top (e.g. one in Springfield had "3C 48" above the rest of the text), I guessed that the two-digit number referred to the year, but my Google search did reveal that there weren't any state markers in 1948, so this number must mean something else. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Surely you realize that Tennessee is not a state that believes in spending money on government functions! Apparently there have been occasional state government publications about markers in the state. According to http://books.google.com/books?id=MRhUAAAAYAAJ -- a 1954 publication about Tennessee historical markers (search on "district" for the snippet I found), the first digit on the marker is a district of some sort and the second digit indicates the sequence of marker construction within the district. If you can find a particular marker by searching in that book, you can assume it's old enough. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3378527 might be interesting -- assuming that you have good access to jstor (I don't). --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that :-) But besides something from the state government, I was hoping that there might be some non-governmental source; for example, the Ohio page I cited is operated by the Ohio Historical Society, not by the state. The thing you found from Google Books is precisely what I was hoping to see, and according to page 12 of this document, they've published a later edition, but Worldcat's entry says that the closest copy to you is in the Knox County Public Library system. And all this would be averted if only they'd put dates on their historical markers, like pretty much every other historical marker I can remember seeing...Thanks too for the JSTOR link. I have access to it, but it proved to be unhelpful; the author provides a broad overview of the dispersal of markers and NR sites statewide, but the main theme is that a disproportionately large number of both of them are devoted to non-politically-correct themes, like the first settlers, architecturally-significant large houses, and warfare against the North or against Indians. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm an immigrant to Tennessee, so I'm not the kind of person to ask to defend the way this state does things, but I sometimes can explain how the state operates.

As for guides to the markers, the Tennessee Historical Commission is in charge of state historical markers, so it's logical that they (not independent historical societies) are the ones who publish guides to the markers. It's possible that they would mail you a copy of their current guide, if you ask. Another interesting wrinkle to be aware of regarding Tennessee is that in many ways it functions as three distinct states: East, Middle, and West Tennessee. Organizations (potentially including historical societies) in the separate regions often are more active than the corresponding whole-state organizations (and organizations that claim to be statewide often operate primarily in Middle Tennessee, because they are based in Nashville). I say that because it appears that some historical markers in Tennessee are placed and maintained by sub-state-level NGOs, as well as by cities -- and you may have seen some such.

Meanwhile, it looks like Mansfield Cheatham House was a good subject for a photo. I look forward to seeing your work from this trip continue to trickle out on Commons. --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I knew the Grand Divisions were relevant for issues like Supreme Court membership, but I didn't realise that there were separate administrative structures (whether governmental or not) for the three. This one is marked "Tennessee Historical Commission", so it's definitely not some local or private group that placed it. I'll be trying to get the new photos online, but it may take a good while: I don't expect to be done by the end of the month. Tons of my photos are for already-illustrated sites (I want to get them for my own NR image collection), so it won't be as much work as if I'd gotten 100+ photos that all needed to be uploaded. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no organized effort to maintain separate organizational structures in the 3 Grand Divisions -- it's just a de facto phenomenon, but it's real.

The Robertson County list is looking a lot better, and I'm pleased to see that you've added in some reference citations and location information for some of the archaeological sites in TN. I'm not particularly interested in Tennessee archaeology, but User:Bms4880 has done good work on some articles for TN archaeological sites and might be interested in collaborating with you on that topic. --Orlady (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Open University of Switzerland

Hi Orlady, Could you assist to have a look at the Open University of Switzerland and see if the Recognition and Accreditation section is valid and accurately reflected? Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I finally tackled this, and ended up nominating the article for deletion at WP:AFD. Nothing inherently wrong with your most recent edits, but I concluded that your earlier effort to delete it through the PROD process was better -- the first step in the proper direction. --Orlady (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Prié blanc

Orlady, if you're willing, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this article, which seems to have arrived at an impasse. You have a very good sense of sourcing, so I was hoping you could determine whether these are problematic at a DYK level (the major reliance on a single source, though there are now many overall). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The wild horse

About the soprano, "sung at the MET" is saying so little - thousands of singers did that, especially in all the minor roles - that it is almost not worth mentioning. She sang (Leonore in) Fidelio, title role. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My only objective was to make it clear that she is a respectable opera singer, not merely a woman with a voice in the soprano range. (And, for future reference, it's "the Met", not "the MET", because "met" is a normal sort of a short nickname -- not an acronym made from the first letters of three words.) --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

ps: it didn't get to the quirky slot --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in the quirky slot now. --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I am sorry. Nyttend contacted me about it, so I didn't realise it was someone else who had created the article. My initial message was left on Talk:St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee). If you follow the comments back and forth, it is quite clear.

• Churches, and many other buildings (state capitals for example) are known in part by their location. A church is often called "Cedar Hill Catholic Church" or St Michael's, Cedar Hill" for example. A placename should not generally be used as a disambiguation. It should be part of the title of the article.
• If St Michaels has a website, then it would call itself "St Michael's Catholic Church, Cedar Hill". It would not call itself "St Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill)"
• Disambiguations are necessary when some piece of information is needed that is not part of the name of the subject of the article. e.g. "Joe Bloggs (politician)" and "Joe Bloggs (writer)". The words "politician" and "writer" differentiate, but are not part of what they are called.
• On Wikipedia, (and even more on Wikimedia Commons), people sometimes establish conventions without checking to see if there are conventions that are already in place and widely used. This has been very much the case with the naming of churches and other important buildings in the US.
• Putting the location of a church in brackets as a disambiguation seems quite ridiculous to anyone who is aware that churches are known by their location about 90% of the time. Notre Dame, Paris is not "Notre Dame (Paris)". St Mark's, Venice is not "St Mark's (Venice)", Westminster Abbey is not "St Peter's Abbey (Westminster)". This is simply not the way it is done. All across the world, churches are known by their parish name or perhaps their locality name: Church of St. Peter & St. Paul, Godalming, St James' Church, Sydney; St Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao etc.
• An ongoing problem is that this inappropriate convention is then applied by US editors to other locations so that the even Classical buildings like the Temple of Zeus, Olympia is likely to find itself misnamed as "Temple of Zeus (Olympia)".

It needs sorting out. Amandajm (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just added further comment on the talk page of User talk:Nyttend. I am sick of having a conversation on four pages. Any further discussion should be on the article's talk page. Amandajm (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And I have already comments at Talk:St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee). --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Response

I have been over the naming conventions in detail. I cannot find any convention for the naming of buildings. However, the convention that applies to places, both generally and specifically in almost every country, including the US, is as follows

• If a place is populated, i.e. it has an address, then the geographic disambiguation follows a comma. e.g. Paris, Maine
• If the place or geographic feature is not populated i.e it does not have an address, and a disambiguation is needed, then the disambiguation is in parenthesis e.g. Red River (Victoria).

It follows that a church, which always has an address, is almost always closely linked to it geographic location i.e. its parish or diocese and is always in an area of some population (unless it is an archaeological ruin) should use the "comma placename" convention as disambiguation rather than the "parenthesis placename" disambiguation which only applies to geographic features.

Thank you for directing me to the relevant pages.

I have not been personally rude or insulting to anyone. I have merely questioned a person's motives after my contributions were referred to as "trolling" and after being told to "stick it".

Amandajm (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, I must further add that I have just looked at your edit summary on my talk page, which accuses me of "personal attack". I want to emphasise here that your edit summary was highly inappropriate. There was "no personal attack" involved, merely that questioning of the motives of an editor who had accused me of trolling. Do you think that I have the right to question a person's motives when they refer to my contributions as "trolling"? I have been treated in an insulting manner.

I would like you to withdraw your accusation of "personal attack".

If you want to know more about what I do on Wikipedia, look at Romanesque architecture, Architecture of cathedrals and great churches, St Peter's Basilica, St Paul's Cathedral, Leonardo da Vinci, Sistine Chapel ceiling etc. I am the major contributor to all these article which are among the "vital" (i.e. "must have") articles on Wikipedia. This will make you aware that when my edits were referred to as "trolling" is really wasn't very appropriate.

Look, in particular at the article Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. Over 100 churches are mentioned by name, including churches from every (populated) continent. In every case (where necessary) the location of the church is given after a comma, not in brackets. This is the way that it is done, across the world.

Amandajm (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Amanda, I have responded to you on your talk page. --Orlady (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you attempting to tell me that churches don't have addresses, are not in populated areas, and are not (in the case of parish churches and cathedrals) closely linked to parish, village or city?

Why are you telling me that churches are a "special case"? How is that?

I have been writing about churches (including churches in the US) for a very long time and in great detail. Tell me why they are a "special case" where naming conventions are concerned.

Amandajm (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am attempting to tell you that churches are not geographic locations, so the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) that you are quoting does not apply to churches. (I referred you to that page only because it explains that U.S. locations are normally rendered as "city, state". My apologies for upsetting you by referring you to pages on two different topics; apparently I was mistaken in thinking that you would figure that out that the pages are relevant to different aspects of this matter.) --Orlady (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And I am attempting to tell you, that in line with the page to which you directed me, the same convention is applied, everywhere else on Wikipedia to churches i.e. (like places) they are in populated areas with addresses, and, the convention "comma, placename" is generally applied to hundreds and hundreds of churches, across Wikipedia. Churches are not treated "differently", except by some US wikipedia users.

Amandajm (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I do see that there are article titles, such as Church of Our Saviour, Singapore, Church of the Saviour, Baku and numerous Enlish churches, that use a oomma to set off what appears to be disambiguation information. Those article titles don't follow the convention at WP:Article titles. The fact that some articles don't follow that policy does not disprove the existence of the policy. Those examples do demonstrate that some users (apparently including you) have been consistently editing against the naming convention on disambiguation. If you think the convention is wrong, you need to open a discussion on the policy talk page. Quit haranguing Nyttend and me over the naming of articles like St. Michael's Catholic Church (Cedar Hill, Tennessee), which is consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. Your behavior has become significantly disruptive -- consider yourself warned that continuation of this disruptive behavior may lead to the usual sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/BK grilled chicken sandwiches

Orlady, here's another DYK nomination that has stalled: it's a GA that was nominated, and has a reviewer and creator in a fundamental disagreement over the article subject matter and whether it's appropriate in general and for DYK in particular. There were five posts within 17 hours, and nothing for the 12 days since.

Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have zero interest in reviewing anything related to BK grilled chicken sandwiches! --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at my talk

Thanks for coming in; William's constant accusations that I'd created the AFD, even after I showed him the diff of its creation by someone else, prompted me to warn him up to {{uw-npa4}} for WP:WIAPA violations (the "making accusations without evidence" bit), but he kept on going. See this comment by someone else, who easily figured out what I was doing, and my comments in response to something else William had said. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend's warnings on my talk page are a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. He violated WP:BRD. Insists on a state of WP:IDHT when it comes to refusing to acknowledge he's the one who put deletion tags on the page and without those there wouldn't have been a AFD page. Nyttend at this talk page said 'Please do not continue to restore it' clearly shows he intended to continue ignoring BRD and that because he is an administrator that he's above that and that brings WP:ADMINABUSE into play or that he now violating WP:OWN. He had no right to tell me not to restore. Nyttend not giving a deletion rationale when tagging the article brings into question his WP:COMPETENCE (Look up above at 'this comment by someone else'. That this comment was done by Nyttend! Talk about lack of competence) and now he is engaging in WP:Forum shopping in hope of getting someone to block me. I said it twice at my talk page- Take it to ANI. If Nyttend thinks the article is spam, why doesn't he start a proper AFD on it. No instead he refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK and pursues me instead for standing up to him. I spent a whole day doing edits to articles. Clearly I've moved on but Nyttend can't. He made a deliberately misleading statement to Mark Arsten, namely not noting that you apologized for reading the page history correctly. Yes I can supply links to back up my accusations, but you and Nyttend and other administrators ignore links that put any of you in a bad light so I'm not going to waste my time doing so in this post(but I will do so at ANI). Everything can be found easily enough. Nyttend is a prime example of why I think so little of administrators around here....William 13:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: The linked comment that you say was actually by Nyttend was in fact by I am One of Many. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How interesting, that I was WP:INVOLVED despite not using admin tools anywhere, and also that he simultaneously tells me to take something to AFD and objects that I went to another admin for assistance. Completely aside from the fact that I wasn't going to Mark to request assistance (the point was to respond to William's allegations), how odd to ask for an ANI discussion and object to me raising it at someone else's talk page. Not to mention the idea of linking a diff by someone else and saying that it's something I said. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:volunteering

Sure, no problem. As I said I think it is a bold & excellent effort which deserves a constructive and supportive approach. :) Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE's block

Hi Orlady. I've been looking over the events leading up to this block, and whilst I can see where you're coming from, it looks to me as though a combination of heated tempers, frayed nerves and misunderstandings have led to what is basically a less-than-optimum result. Personally I don't see anything here that rises to the level of a personal attack, but then I have a pretty thick skin (you should see my Wikipedia email inbox sometime...); it just looks to me like a user getting frustrated because they haven't understood the situation and feel persecuted by the admin corps. I'd be willing to unblock WilliamJE and to make another attempt to explain the situation to him - and suggest some more productive approaches should he wish to continue the dispute - but naturally only if you're amenable to the idea. Let me know your thoughts - I'll be offline now for a few hours, though, so if you do agree to an unblock I'd be indebted if you'd push the buttons for me, and I'll drop by William's talkpage later this evening. All the best, Yunshui 雲‍水 15:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The block was precipitated by the fact that he made three edits to this page, adding to his bill of particulars against Nyttend (complaints that had already been posted in a number of places over the last couple of days), after I had given him an "only warning" that included the following:

You've already had a "final warning," so I could block you right now. However, I don't like to do that to productive contributors, so I'm hoping this warning will make a bigger impression on you, coming from a different user. If you persist in your obsessive (and apparently baseless) personal attacks on User:Nyttend, you should expect to receive a forced vacation from Wikipedia editing.

--Orlady (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I myself have been called a variety of terrible things (e.g., "evil") and once was even the target of a bizarre off-wiki webpage that accused me of witchcraft, satanism, and a bunch of other horrifying stuff. I used to figure that it was best to maintain a thick-skinned attitude toward that kind of behavior, but over time I've decided that my former attitude was a mistake. I now believe that shrugging off nastiness does not make the nastiness stop -- it may even help to perpetuate the behavior -- and it is very disruptive to the community. Also, I discovered that an appalling number of people believed everything they read. I've come around to the view that personal attacks should be addressed early, before the situation gets out of control. I hoped this user would listen to warnings, but that didn't work. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Reason for block?

It may have gotten lost in the sea of material on William's page, but I'd like to know precisely what William said that earned a block. I thought it was the reference to competence, but you linked to this edit, which is not the one bringing up competence. I was preparing an offer to unblock if William agrees to drop the references to Competence, but now I am concerned that isn't the precipitating item. I'd still prefer that you voluntarily unblock him; I have never overturned another admin's block, and you have no idea how conflicted I am about doing this one, but I think William, while far form perfect has been mainly the victim in this mess, and it is unfair that he is blocked, while no one else is accountable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That single diff actually was a series of 3 edits that he made to this page after I had warned him about continuing to attack Nyttend -- and after he had acknowledged the warning by deleting it from his talk page. The fact that he read the warning, then came here and continued posting personal diatribes against Nyttend, was what caused me to conclude that it was time to act. (From the evidence, he was too busy complaining about Nyttend to be working on Peter Oosterhuis.) It wasn't so much the specific words that he used, but rather the behavior (persistence in repeating the same accusations in various places), that I was responding to.

As for my choice of "harassment" as a reason for blocking, I had the impression that the reason I picked covered both personal attacks and harassment. I have very little experience with blocking users for anything other than sockpuppetry and edit warring, so I'm not very familiar with the nuances of the other potential reasons for blocking.

I'd be happy to unblock if WilliamJE would acknowledge that he got carried away in his campaign against Nyttend, and would quit posting his complaints and accusations. I haven't seen that from him yet. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. I thought the most serious think in there was the Competence allegation, but that wasn't in the specific edit you cited, so I wondered whether you meant something else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not harrassing Nyttend. He restarted an issue that laid dormant for a day except for him. If anything, he was gunning for me. What you did to me is permanently on my block log. That's the Wikipedia equivalent of giving someone a criminal record. Only low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience do that. Your blocking me for harrassment when you don't know what constitutes it or explain how I was doing that makes you to be an incompetent if not administrator. Especially since almost everything you did or said towards me starting with that talk page message and your first comment to me on Nyttend's page has been labbeled dead wrong and or heavily criticized by everyone around Your buddy buddy with Nyttend is reprehensible and should be the cause of your losing administrative tools. It won't happen even though its clear you put protecting your buddy first over protecting Wikipedia. Instead I will watching the both of you for the next time you try what you did to me to someone else. So watch out. I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!...William 23:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you weren't harassing Nyttend. I didn't actually say you were. I said that you were engaging in personal attacks. When I blocked you, I selected a reason from the pulldown menu (supplemented with other information), and the reason I chose was "Personal attacks or harassment". Note the word "or" in that phrasing; I blocked you for personal attacks. How interesting that your reaction now is to tell me that you are now targeting me -- not necessarily for an "attack," but rather an ongoing campaign against me. Please note that the overall messages of WP:NPA and WP:Harassment are "comment on content, not on the contributor" and a directive against behavior that appears to "intentionally target a specific person or persons." You might want to consider what it is in your recent behavior that might lead an observer to think that you were engaging in personal attacks or harassment. --Orlady (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you did say harrasment. It is in my block log[2]. You continue to lie in the face of incontrovertible evidence. That's reprehensible. As for following around, that isn't harassment. Its making sure you and no other administrator abuse your tools and when you do someone holds all of you accountable and tries to fix the shit you've done to other people. I am standing up for the abuse victims because very few editors has the guts to. Its something I've been doing for a while. Sphilbrick may remember an editor called Durneydiaz who I intervened for and got him to unblock. More recently there was the idiotic block of Joefromrandb by TigerShark that I led the campaign to get overturned after not 1 but 2 administrators said the block was wrong but wouldn't overturn it. TigerShark is so incompetent that he proposed 0RR for Joe with no exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations. He's still an administrator around here because administrators have made it next to impossible for anyone to get an abusive one removed. Oh and TigerShark has indefinitely banned a bunch of IPs which isn't something that's supposed to be done lightly, had admins call him on it, but nothing has been done about it. So someone has to keep an eye out for the abusers so at the very least their bogus blocks can be overturned. You've proven today you're willing to abuse someone to protect a friend. I already said above what I think that makes you....William 00:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Kindly read the first paragraph of Logical disjunction. "A or B" doesn't mean "A", and "Harassment or personal attacks" doesn't mean "Harassment", and it doesn't make any evidence of Orlady lying. If you persist in attacking us, you may wish to take a quick break and make an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown to get this block reason to be split into two. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not going to say anymore. You can't win arguments against idiots as my Mom used to say or people without a conscience. Absolute power makes that disappear in people....William 00:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to avoid scrutiny Nyttend make better decisions in the future! Don't get mad at a user when you screw up and they call you out on it. Even if you are an "admin" that sort of conduct isn't acceptable and if no one else is going to tell you I will. I'm not afraid of you or of getting blocked for telling you that I think you and Orlady need to take a step back and self assess why you are here and what is best for Wikipedia. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

William, I asked that you work on commenting on edits, not editors, and you agreed to try. Referring to "idiots" isn't helpful. It is doubly unfortunate that Orlady used a summary "Personal attacks or harassment", first because one other participant incorrectly assumed that harassment was meant, and second, the words is there, and may have convinced you it was part of the charge. I urge you to re-read the explanation - there is a pull-down menu, and the option is a standard option. Selecting it does NOT mean the admin is charging you with both, it means the admin thinks one OR the other, but not necessarily both, apply. That said, if someone called me a "an upstanding person or a blithering idiot" I would take small comfort in the logical implication of the word "or". Perhaps we should revisit the drop-down options, but I urge you to drop the argument that Orlady was accusing you of harassment, and worse, your accusation that she is a liar when she provides a perfectly understandable explanation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Refnums

If you want to take a break from discussing personal attacks and accusations about low-life cold-blooded snakes, you might want to check back at WT:NRHP regarding the refnums in the tables. Dudemanfellabra made an alternate suggestion (display the numbers with tooltips), and I offered reasoning for displaying the refnums in a different manner; it would help if you'd respond to his and my ideas when you get the chance/the inclination. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll go look. And as it happens, among my most recent work, I reviewed a DYK about a cold-blooded lizard that looks like a snake. --Orlady (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Your kind response is even better when I look at it now, it inspires me to keep on editing and reading. I made a start at Eileen Blair. Si Trew (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Great news! Looks like an interesting topic... --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned you at ANI

I wanted to let you know I mentioned you at ANI here. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

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

It's on the CEEMAN topic. Thank you. Audit Guy (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Great Smoky Mountains Heritage Center

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added 02:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 02:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added 03:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 03:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Move Commons (2)

I think it's because of this edit. The guy had failed to submit the request, so I submitted it (without realising that it would attach my username to anything), wondering if it might get accepted. Note that the result is a notice saying "This draft was nominated by Nyttend", so it's not some bot weirdness, even though it looks that way, and even though I too thought it was abot problem. I'll say something to Anon126, but simply to explain what happened and ask that he notify the real creator. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Freedom and Unity Front

Orlady, Lihaas indicates that the issues you raised have been dealt with. (I did request more work when it was clear that edits had only had addressed the single case of close paraphrasing you mentioned as an example and not the systemic issues you identified.)

I have no idea whether this has been solved or is still far away; if the latter, it brings up a question: how many tries do we allow at fixing identified problems? Is it indefinite, or is there some point at which we pull the plug? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about Clinton TN and coal town definition

Hey Orlady, just a few questions. While I totally understand that Clinton TN in its current form does not resemble a coal town, it did at one point originate as one. I was able however to find this as an example. As a WV equivalent if you will, Beckley, West Virginia, was at one time, certainly a coal town as well as Mullens, West Virginia. Would it be accurate to state it was a former coal town and have that in the article and place Clinton back in the coal town cat? Both Beckley and Mullens had actual working moines and yes, did indeed have coal scrip as a currency. Morbidly curious and of course I will respect any decision that is reached. It would not be beyond the pale to state that unless the coal was there, the city or place would not be what we know it today.Many ThanksCoal town guy (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your categorization is that Clinton never was a coal town. The article coal town equates "coal towns" with coal camps, which are communities currently or historically located at or near a coal mine (or tipple). Clinton isn't built on (or over) any coal-bearing rocks -- the coal is on the other side of a major geologic fault 5 miles northwest of Clinton. There's a steep ridge along the fault line, and railroads didn't ever cross that ridge. Historically, Clinton's economic role was mostly as a river town and a market community for farmers. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC) As for that photo you found, it might be a place that's currently served by the Clinton post office, but it's not in Clinton. (It might be Briceville.) Similarly, those photos of coal mines that are allegedly in Knoxville aren't in Knoxville -- there's no coal there, either. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

COOL, this I never knew, I have noted that in KY and WV there are many photos which are incorrectly marked as well. Example, on commons, there is a pic labelled, Besoco, West Virginia, its not, it is actually Mead, West Virginia. The homes in the pic contain a relative of mine, in Mead, Besoco was down in the valley near Lego. I guess I need to get in the car and get me to Tennessee...BUT, right now, I have some cool opportunities in WV, in places that actually have tipple remains, a rare thing, sadly for me anyway.Coal town guy (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the places in those Tennessee photos are long gone now. However, Tennessee State Route 116 from Lake City to Briceville and through the New River area to Petros still has some coal-town character. Just watch out for daredevil motorcyclists riding "the Devil's Triangle". --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds tempting. However, I took a self imposed wiki break to complete some research, amazing what Alzheimer's does to the location of a near extinct town. Luckily, her long term memory is ok, so Mom and I get to visit a place and time. Good news is, I found great data, bad news is I gotta get some refs to back it up and bonus I get to go back in May.I learned that I am now one of 7 left from my old place. I therefore determined, a wiki break was in order. Well, back and hopefully wiser. Old people sure do have a habit of dying too fast, but then again, it's what we areCoal town guy (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have advised others that if they want their information to be added to Wikipedia, they need to get it published somewhere -- for example, in a newspaper. Then it can be cited here. Local newspapers are often thrilled to receive contributed articles about nearby towns that are nearly extinct. --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robinson Crusoe House

Hello! Your submission of Robinson Crusoe House at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks so much for your review. CeeGee 18:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! It's probably just as well that I don't get this for every DYK review I do -- baklava is delicious, but fattening! --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not quite undeletion

Your ad looked good, but the links aren’t quite what I wanted. You know that when you follow a red link you get "Creating", but no history of the previous article. I don’t want to undelete anything, I just want to see it, maybe take something. Is there a trick? Mack D series and Mack E series would be two quick examples, but I see others regularly. These are certainly deleted just for pure lame, nobody argues about old trucks. Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about, Sammy D III. Was this message intended for someone else? --Orlady (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am so sorry. "This administrator will consider reasonable requests to provide copies of deleted articles." was the subject. I wonder if I can see, but not undelete, them. I don't communicate well. Sammy D III (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha, so you are hoping to see copies of Mack D series and Mack E series? Neither of those articles has ever been deleted...

The typical reasons people might ask to see a deleted article are: (1) for their personal files (for example, because they created the article) or (2) to use the content (for example, a list of references) as raw material for writing a new article. --Orlady (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sammy D III (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sabine Hill

Materialscientist (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK of Mass surveillance in East Germany

Thanks for your review of that DYK nom and putting it into prep-area 3. I'm new to DYK. I just want to double check that the nomination will not run before Feb 11. As you may be aware, there are some high level discussions on whether to run a special set on Feb 11.

That debate is for higher authorities than me, but I just want to confirm that the DYK is being "held" for feb 11 or later, to preserve the possibility of a special day on Feb 11.

At the same time, until a consensus emerges, I understand the hesitation to schedule things FOR feb 11, so I don't ask that. Just please extend the same courtesy we extend to the olympics, and HOLD content in the event a consensus for scheduling emerges.

Thanks again for all the great work you do. I've never talked ot you before, but I know I've enjoyed the DYKs you've improved and placed on mainpage for a long time :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Orlady: HectorMoffet has initiated a subsection about your actions at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Orlady's Prejudgment of consensus and scheduling against procedure (and not bothered to inform you of this, for some reason). —David Levy 07:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm... Just to be clear, when I reviewed this, I suggested Feb 8 as an alternative because I could see the problems with Feb 11. I wasn't implying that anyone would be celebrating the founding of the Stasi. It just seemed a significant date, in the same way that September 2 might be significant to the Red Terror of 1918 (if it ever gets to DYK), but it wouldn't mean that anyone is celebrating it. Green Giant (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate your reasoning, User:Green Giant. For the record, the orchestration of DYK hooks scheduled for special occasions can be a royal pain. Stuff happens -- special requests get overlooked, the update schedule changes, and both whole queues and individual hooks get swapped. All too often, at the last minute an administrator has to swap hooks between queues so that a hook won't be displayed before or after its special date. It's not worth going to that trouble to satisfy somebody's whim. According, we don't honor special-occasion requests on a whim; there needs to be some indication that the requested date has some significance that will be recognized and appreciated by a non-negligible subset of Wikipedia readers. The February 11th date was requested because of an effort to focus anti-surveillance activism on that date; that could have been a valid occasion, but discussion at WT:DYK indicated a lot of opposition to that idea, largely because of a perception that the proponents were primarily interested in promoting a POV. I could not see that the anniversary of the founding of Stasi was an occasion that would merit recognition. --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Portrait of Isabel Rawsthorne Standing in a Street in Soho

Mentoz (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Extremely old GARs

Please close Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2 and Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2 one way or another.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Freedom and Unity Front

Done?(Lihaas (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)).

FYI heads up

Please see diff.

I made a good faith effort here to get through to this user.

I tried! :)

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I don't see any indication that he wants to step back at this time, though. Thanks for your efforts (while I was sleeping). --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the intensity, but...

The Day We Fight Back wasn't my idea, it was Jimbo's and others I respect. That doesn't mean it has consensus, but it does mean I feel justified in "doing my best" to provide options to the community that might meet the intentions proposed by Jimbo.

You knew fully well that a discussion was on-going for whether to schedule articles for Feb 11, that discussion was active.

My initial impulse was to completely ignore WP:MAIN bureaucracy and the people who feel they OWN mainpage. But lots of people asked me to submit my DYKs to the normal nomination process.

In the back of my mind, a voice said "What if someone tries to sabotage Feb 11 content by fastracking it to run earlier?" I seriously had that concern, and almost decided to keep all my articles in draft until Feb 9 so they couldn't possible be run ahead of schedule.

But another voice in my head said "Come on, HectorMoffet-- Assume good faith!!! nobody would try to sabotage Feb 11 by fastracking nominations that have a clear "Hold" on them". So I submitted my drafts and nominated them.

You probably didn't mean to, but your fastracking completely confirmed my worst fears-- that you and Bench and David feel you "own" mainpage, and even a proposal by Jimbo must be sabotaged or obstructed if it threatens that ownernship. ... I'm out-- I won't participate in generating a consensus for this-- that's up to our board members and others with more talen than I.

But I tell you sincerely, it really hurt my feelings for you to ignore my request for to hold for "feb 11 or later". I completely understand the skepticism for a special day on Feb 11, but when you scheduled my own nomination for a date that had my strong opposition, it told me you don't care much about my opinions, and that really hurt.

IF the promotion of nationalism and ableism is allowed to be held, I think an issue suggested by Jimbo deserves that same level of deference. Maybe Feb 11 will come and pass without a consensus-- but I'll be damned if I'll let 3-5 users decide an issue of this magnitude based on the claim that they own mainpage. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

and in case you think I'm joking about ableism or it's is just me be PC, it's not. Dr. King said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." The 50 metres is the complete opposite, where we completely ignore character and judge based entirely on the capabilities of bodies. I agree that Feb 11 is more controversial than the olympics, but they're both value-laden, and the hold requests on both deserve equal respect. --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to see who is responsible for the failure of the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal to get traction in the Wikipedia community, look in the mirror. OK, it's not just you, and this isn't about personalities. Rather, it's about the POV-pushing behavior and the expressions of contempt for standard Wikipedia community protocols that have characterized advocacy for this proposal. Wikipedia makes decisions by WP:Consensus, not by edicts from Jimbo Wales. (And, believe it or not, most of us don't spend our days watching his talk page.) And "community consensus" is not just the collective opinions of 3 to 5 users.

Please recall that when the proposal was raised on the DYK talk page, it received essentially unanimous opposition -- and from more than 5 people -- in a short time. I am the one who proposed that this be handled as a DYK "special occasion", which was was the first time in the discussion that the proposal got any support from DYK regulars. Several other DYK regulars supported that idea, but opposition continued. If you read the discussion, you will see that the opposition was largely due to the perception that you and others were committed to turning the main page into a soapbox for advocacy. When I moved that East Germany hook into the prep area, it was because we needed to have a new prep-area hook set finished within the next couple of hours, it was an approved hook that would not skew the topical balance of the hook set, and recent comments at WT:DYK led me to conclude that the proposal to treat February 11 as a special occasion (my proposal) was dead.

When I saw your message objecting to that hook placement (right before turning off the light to go to bed), I advised you to go to WT:DYK with your concern -- because it was too late at night for me to deal with the situation and because that talk page is the place for discussion of hook scheduling (requests to reschedule hooks are posted fairly often), as well as to get assistance with the non-obvious technical aspects of moving hooks around. I perceived (and still perceive) your decision to ignore that advice, remove the hook from the prep area (without dealing with those non-obvious technical details), and start a philippic about me on Jimbo's talk page, as an expression of contempt for the Wikipedia community and its processes. For me, behavior like that "seals the deal" against the Day We Fight Back proposal -- I have no interest in supporting or cooperating with an initiative whose advocates are behaving that way.

It's ironic that you are suggesting that Jimbo Wales' ideas should override the consensus of the Wikipedia community. You are saying, in effect, that you want Wikipedia to be an autocracy, rather than being directed by community consensus. Be careful what you wish for. Historically, surveillance has been most dangerous in societies that are under autocratic control. Diffusion of power into the broad community (as in the Wikipedia model) is an important safeguard against the kinds of violations of human rights that you are most concerned about. --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to see who is responsible for the failure of the Surveillance Awareness Day proposal to get traction in the Wikipedia community, look in the mirror.

My grandfather, a navy vet, had a saying: If you're going to kick a man when he's down, you might as well aim for the nuts." So, Bravo-- ya nailed me good, it stings badly, as it was meant to. In another context those words might be a personal attack, but in this context, they're just an intentionally painful truth.

For what it's worth, I don't think any one person or group should be tasked with a decision like this. That's why I was unphased that mainpage insiders objected and that's why you don't see me saying a consensus currently exists to do anything special on feb 11. My thinkging was: If our board members (or whoever) decide to propose serious action to the sitewide community, they'll need a menu of options. But I never my goal to "lead" the call for something special-- and you have pointed out to me that I failed miserably at it. My goal wasn't to convince anyone this should happen, my goal was to create content so that if, come feb 11, a consensus existed, we would have options available.

I recognize that with each passing day, it's increasingly less likely we will do anything special. I've done all I can, and now I just need to stay out of it; if on feb 11 there is no consensus, then nothing happens, and that's fine.

But you show my content the same courtesy you show april fool's day or the olympics or halloween. Hold for Feb 11 or later means hold for feb 11 or later, not "run whenever you please, because we already know the outcome of a discussion that is on-going."

Please continue to respect that the content is to be held for Feb 11 as a potential option for Jimbo and others if they generate a consensus for it. Given that, we need never speak again-- I'm on my way out as it is. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robinson Crusoe House

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ludwig Roselius Museum

Orlady (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is here to express my thanks for your help with maintaining the DYK process. Your assistance is highly appreciated!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a cutie! --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Greenback Depot

Orlady (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Georgina Henry

The DYK project (nominate) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your support and kind words during my (now withdrawn) RfA. What doesn't kill me... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Remember The 13th

Orlady, there's been a request for a neutral third party here from the nominator, who wants an opinion on whether the nomination should be continued or withdrawn. You've been quite active lately; I was wondering if you could take a look at this one, as it involves a hoax organization, a related article about said organization that was just deleted in an AfD, and other issues. Thanks for considering it. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for posting a comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for St. Anthony's Hospital, London

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Leech River Fault

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Street Artists Program of San Francisco

Hello! Your submission of Street Artists Program of San Francisco at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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) 10:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• The San Francisco Street Artists Program Article is a History Piece, and not a News Release or a Promotional Advertisement

I can not fathom how anyone would see this as a news piece, when the substance of the article is really historical in nature. The article is about the history of the invention of a new branch of San Francisco's government, and like most of the articles that I create, it is primarily focused on history.

Please read the original release of the article of 9 February 2014 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco&oldid=594692426 ]. You can see that it is populated with an enormous amount of references to newspaper articles that span 40 years, which I have researched at the San Francisco Public Library.

Once again, history is the substance of the topic and its original form shows that it is tightly sourced to historic facts from newspaper articles. If it was really promotional in nature, then the majority of its text would be without referenced sources. The abundance of sourced references guarantees the essential neutrality of this history piece. The San Francisco Street Artists Program is an public municipal arts program, not unlike the public market in Seattle called Pike's Place. Please read Pike's Place article, and tell me how it is any different than this piece. Does one also think that the Pikes Place Market should also be deleted because it is a "news piece" or is "promotional" in nature? That would be absurd.

The San Francisco Street Artists Program is also about a part of San Francisco's government, in much the same way that the San Francisco Arts Commissionarticle describes a branch of government. Does one also think that the emerging San Francisco Arts Commission article is a news piece should also be deleted or buried? Again, it would be a mistake to capriciously delete any article about a branch of government, or the history involved in the formation of a branch of government.

When reading the article the way it was written on 9 February 2014, notice how it later received massive edits from an unregistered Wiki user whose IP address is 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8. The many new entries of the name "Bill Clark" are by Bill Clark himself, and his edits are obviously self aggrandizing, and almost always without sources. He is an obsessive individual with no experience with Wikipedia, no interest in sourcing his statements, and should really be banned from the article. Wikipedia should consider reverting the article back to its original state of 9 February 2014, and ban Bill Clark and other unregistered Wiki users from screwing up the piece any further. If Bill Clark is allowed to continue to anonymously make edits from various IP addresses, then this article will be a non-stop Edit War which will only fatigue the sincere contributors of Wikipedia, and enable the destruction of a historic record.

I created this article because I witnessed an extraordinary sequence of unlikely political events which shaped a new and innovative branch of municipal government, and not because I need to advertise or promote the San Francisco Street Artist Program itself. At present, I am in no way affiliated with the San Francisco Street artist program, nor do I profit in any way by its existence. Do the right thing and let the facts of history remain in the annals of Wikipedia, and not be discarded by hasty and subjective judgement.

Also, to condense the article would be a big mistake. When examining history, we need to see the complete sequencing of events in order to truly understand a phenomena and its causes. Would we really see an advantage in condensing the World War I article? I think not. When it comes to history, more information is better than too little information. James Carroll (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:African-American women academics

Category:African-American women academics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Simmons Bedding Company

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of AACSB-accredited schools (accounting)

Orlady, the tag has been cleared on this as you requested, but the table, while containing institutions and their location information, has the bulk of the last two columns incomplete (and they actually disappear about halfway down). Does this run afoul of D7, the completeness rule? The introductory text appears to be complete, it's the table/list that is clearly missing the student body size and faculty size info for all but the first institutions in the list. Please stop by when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that nom recently, but didn't want to take the time to say everything that needed to be said. The removal of the tag helps, but the table is still glaringly incomplete-looking, and I have some other issues with it. (For example, it bugs me that, for U.S. institutions, the location column commingles hyperlocal place names like "Storrs" with state names like "Texas".) The hook is also both promotional in nature and a bit lame. --Orlady (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tyler Ulis

Orlady, my recollection is that you told me at one time that all hook facts in a multi-article hook do not have to be in all of the nominated articles, though of course the hook facts must be found and supported in at least one of the articles. (I had thought that each fact had to be in all of the articles.) Can you please stop by here and give the explanation? I don't remember your reasoning, and don't want to attempt an explanation without the "why". Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Emperor's New Drugs

Orlady, I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome—thank you very much for weighing in on the double nom—but this hook is currently in Prep 1 and (if not moved again) destined for the main page at 0800 UTC. (I originally moved it because we are heavy in bios, and there was no reason not to run three in that set.)

I'm having a bit of trouble pulling it apart, but the hook seems a bit off to me: although the article says the book seems to indicate that antidepressants are basically equivalent to a placebo, I think it also says that antidepressants can indeed be of some help to severely depressed people ... and if that is true, then the hook could be questionable.

I dropped a note on SandyGeorgia's talk page to take a look at it from this and from a MEDRS perspective (she had offered to check for the latter), but it doesn't look like she's around today. Unfortunately, this can't wait if the hook needs adjusting (or a complete overhaul), so I'm hoping you can take a look at this today. Many thanks. (I was going to ask Crisco, but it's overnight where he is, and he might not be back online in time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I revised the hook wording so the fact is focused on the book and not on antidepressants. --Orlady (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Street Artists Program of San Francisco

Orlady (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cherry Mansion

The DYK project (nominate) 18:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Duggar and Bates pages

Hi, did you take these off your watchlist? Well, guess who's back? The user just uses an anonymous IP now (24.203.254.49), and is just beginning to cause more trouble again. I wanted you to be aware so that you could possibly help me out when necessary. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, User:Walter Görlitz has also had trouble with this user. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I still have those pages on my watchlist, but I quit checking them very often because the edits weren't looking problematic, and I got profoundly bored monitoring changes in the details of who's "courting" who, and whether the courting couple got married. (Anyway, I can get my fill of the Bates family in the local newspaper.) --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please also semi-protect 19 Kids and Counting? This person does not abide by BRD. Thank you. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

getting there...

Hello Orlady. I just wanted to thank you for sorting out the DYK template I posted for Savart wheel. Much appreciated :) 81.147.166.111 (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To be characterized as an "IP hopper" like that was not a good feeling. Fyi, I believed it was helpful to provide this feedback I thought helpful, in the spirit of contributing actively to Wikipedia. The questions I was trying to raise had--as far as I can see--nothing to do with IP contributorship, and they were not addressed (except perhaps by informing me I shouldn't have done something that the template explicitly told me to do). But I'm probably just no good at online communication in forum threads that, to me at least, feel like a jungle. I'll now go back to trying to steer well clear of such discussions. That's one reason why I choose to edit as an IP--because I find it helps me avoid them. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC) [formerly 81.147.166.111]

"IP hopper" is simply a shorter way to say "unregistered user whose IP address shifts frequently." I did not intend any implication of ill intent on your part. The fact is that it is difficult to communicate with an unregistered user who doesn't have a consistent IP address. You cannot ask other users to give you courtesy notifications if we don't have a user page or email address where we can contact you. (This is just one of several ways in which being a registered user makes it far easier to contribute effectively here.) --Orlady (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

Talkback

Hi, I responded to you at Template:Did you know nominations/Drury Run several days ago. --Jakob (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Swedish nuclear weapons program

Orlady, it's been 16 days since your last post to this nomination, and since then the article has made no progress toward addressing the outstanding issues, including close paraphrasing you think is there. Now that there's a GA option, this is the sort of article that could be suggested as an eventual candidate after the GA has passed, though the issues you note would have to be fixed first. I was wondering how long you think we should wait before closing the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for William H. Griffitts House

The DYK project (nominate) 14:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)