User talk:Orlady

Welcome!

Hello, Orlady, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Wrathchild ^(talk) 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocks on the National Register

Your question about "blocks" induced me to research and write about a "block" that I visited and photographed a few weeks ago. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice little article -- and photos.

I've pretty well concluded that being called a "block" is not a defining characteristic suitable for categorization, but I'm still curious to see whether there's an architectural history expert who can provide some definitive info on the terminology. --Orlady (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That would definitely be welcome. I'm tending toward thinking the same thing — after all, I can't see any architectural difference between the Black-Elliott Block and the Clossman Hardware Store (almost next door to each other in downtown Zanesville, Ohio), but there could be something we're both missing. And thanks for the compliments. I had just gotten a camera tripod, and the trip to Lima was my first chance to try it out :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Another building that you might find interesting is Levering Hall in Mount Gilead, Ohio. Built as a two-part structure, the front part has the alternate name of "VanHorn Block", but the rear part is inscribed "Levering Hall". You can see both names at File:Levering Hall.jpg — look in the semicircular thing at the top of the left side for VanHorn, and under the pediment on the right side for Levering. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favor...

... and block me for the next month. If you need a reason, just say I'm being given a punitive block for the last time I yelled at Doncram, or a punitive block for various off-Wikipedia screwups I've made today.

I figure I've been screwing up enough things that a month-long block would be entirely deserved. It might make some people really happy, too. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mariano Werner stub

Thanks for adding sources to that. I was gonna get to it tomorrow, but really don't especially like doing it. Just trying to help out a little with the unsourced BLP's. I am curious, though, why you find that paltry two sentence stub worth saving, and yet hate very short NRHP stubs. In my opinion, a two sentence NRHP stub with an infobox and a good reference is far superior. Lvklock (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My answer is too long to write right now. Later... --Orlady (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of The National Association of Professional Women

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_April_29#The_National_Association_of_Professional_Women. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks at Bircham article

I'm just curious as to how the redlinks you restored are useful. Certainly if articles will be created to bluify them, they would be, but is that likely? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you click on those redlinks and then on "What links here," you will find that most of these titles have several incoming links -- and in many instances they are titles of articles that were deleted at one time or another. As a Wikipedia contributor who deals often with the topic of educational institutions that claim affiliation with associations that may or may not exist, I find these links enormously helpful. Furthermore, sometimes these links do turn into articles when someone finds appropriate content. (Sometimes it turns out that the deleted articles had good content, but were deleted due to the incorrect view that only reputable entities can be notable.) --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, I had not thought of their use as a backtracking mechanism, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Did I do something to offend you? Novaseminary (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I keep running into you (in articles about unaccredited colleges and at Independent Baptist, for example). In most of those places, you seem to be intent on deleting content. I can't figure out why you are so determined to remove the work of other contributors.

While we are on the subject, why did you consider it necessary to remove the list of colleges from Independent Baptist, create List of Independent Fundamental Baptist educational institutions as a stand-alone list article, and delete the redlinks from that list? Many of your edits give me the impression of being the work of someone who has a POV to push. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As for he unaccredited colleges, I think my edits to Educational accreditation and related pages indicate that I do not have a POV and, in fact, have worked to keep POV-fake-accreditation text out of WP. It was my desire to remove unsourced, POV edits that lead me to the articles at which we have intersected. As for the Independent Baptist, I removed a good deal of unsourced material purely because it was dubious and unsourced or violated WP:UNDUE. You added it back without sourcing it. Regardless, I split the list of schools because the list was taking up a huge chunk of the article (and there is a guideline in favor of that, but it escapes me right now). I pasted it exactly as it was into a new article as a list article. Then I added a lead and removed the non-sourced listings without a WP article. Feel free to add them back if you plan to create articles for them. You've now twiced accused me of pushing a POV, but per an edit history of your's you "don't know what the POV is." Isn't that called being neutral? I think you think I am a booster of some unaccredited schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the guidance favoring stand-alone instead of embedded lists in these circumstances. Per Wikipedia:Embedded_lists#Lists_versus_prose: "Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries." In addition, the list of schools is problematic--especially as an embedded list--because by definition (at least as the article is written), Indepedent Fundamental Baptist schools or churches are not under a common structure. Novaseminary (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

One other quick thought. These comments of yours from the Independent Baptist talk page seem to highlight the very problems I tried to remedy on that article. And you apparently agreed with most of my edits to that page or at least left them; really all but the KJ-only and education sections (which were the sections I actually paired down more because of the WP:UNDUE and unsourced concerns than for POV reasons). You called the problems nearly three years ago. I suspect both of us really dislike unsourced POV and you mistook my disdain of the same as my trying to insert the reverse POV. No hard feelings. But before alleging POV where you don't even "know what the POV is," maybe take a closer look at editing patterns. I've removed similar text from academic, religious, musical, media, and military articles. I try to only add well sourced, neutral (if sometimes boring and plain) text. You might disagree with my edits, but I would hope we could agree that the only POV I am pushing is strict adherence to WP policies and guidelines even if we don't agree on exactly what that means. Novaseminary (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Down by the old mill stream

A couple of related new ones have swum into my view: Management Institute of Canada, and its parent, Delta International University of New Orleans. Students of MIC get their diploma from DIU, which in turn claims accreditation from something called the International Association of Distance Learning, and to be seeking "State Accreditation" in Louisiana. Help me, oh golden mistress of the diploma-mill industry! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Is this the unknown entity International Association for Distance Learning or are two different names being used by different unknown entities? --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in the discourse taking place now at User talk:Finitude2222. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that this latest incarnation has been blocked. I think it might be a good idea to semi-protect those two articles. Ideally, articles like those (i.e., with a high level of attractiveness for self-interested SPAs, but little to interest the rest of us) would be enrolled in "pending changes". --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Elim Bible Institute

I have nominated Elim Bible Institute, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elim Bible Institute (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. 2 says you, says two 15:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about the Huffman and TallMagic accounts

I just noticed that, in addition to continuing his battle with Derek Smart in Smart's BLP, both accounts were very active in the related Warren National University (WNU) article. The problems with that I just detailed here. The WNU article's history shows that you were also heavily involved in editing that article at the same time. Were you unaware that Huffman/TallMagic was editing that article apparently as part of a long-running, off-wiki feud between himself and Derek Smart? Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment page cited. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Many thanks for your work involving state legislators-RFD (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been very encouraging and helpful with the various state legislators-Thank you again-RFD (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Destroyed and Formerly on the NRHP

I agree with you that the category names aren't the best; my Destroyed category was intentionally patterned after the name of Former. What would you think of proposing a move to "Formerly on the National Register of Historic Places"? Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a brilliant suggestion, Nyttend. Go for it! --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Before I go for it, do you have any suggestions for a destroyed category? "Destroyed and on the National Register of Historic Places" doesn't sound good to me, and I can't think of anything else. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable persons sections

Be sure to check the discussion on the Wikiproject Tennessee talk page when you get a chance. Bms4880 (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Talk:Nicknames of Portland, Oregon.
Message added 04:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

tedder (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Westwood College

My attention drawn by a new AfD on some spinoff articles, I've taken light trimming scissors to the article for Westwood College. But I suspect that this article would benefit from the full Orlady treatment, should you be so inclined. Thanks.--Best, Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've spent a little bit of time on the article (more time is needed) and I commented at the AfD. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sup Girl?

How you doin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurkmolsner (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens

[1] I think the full-protection was a misclick? Courcelles (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. You were fixing it while I was flapping my jaws here. Courcelles (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!

Orlady - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Columbus University

I have nominated Columbus University, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbus University. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. 2 says you, says two 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Knoxville neighborhoods

We may need your guidance at Template_talk:Knoxneighborhoods, if you get a chance. The template, based on city-data.com, is a mess. Bms4880 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Knoxville and Knox Metro confusion

After reading the Knoxville article, I'm not seeing too much confusion between Knoxville and Knoxville Metro Area, except in some suggestions on the talk page. The "Nearby communities" section is a bit subjective, though. Bms4880 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The nearby communities section has been replaced. That's much better. Now when someone tries to sneak Morristown or Newport into this section, we can objectively revert it. Feel free to modify as you see fit.

The Economy section is just bad and in need of expansion, so I'm not going to fool with it at the moment. As for the Smokies, the team's article says they're based in the Knoxville Metropolitan Area, but from what I understand, Kodak (where the team's front office is located) is in the Sevierville Micropolitan Area. Bms4880 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

3O?

I believe we both desire to make the List of bow tie wearers a better article. It's clear we have different views on what sources are suitable. Would you be open to requesting a third opinion?--~TPW 00:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Question??

Is there a way to do notes on a page for research where they only show up in edit???--Happypixie (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Friendly hello

We worked together at ODP a while back. Nice seeing you in an edit log again! --Pnm (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the fine addition to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. --Lexein (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dumb Question I am sure

What are the (+) and (-) after are names in the contributions for??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypixie (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any pluses or minuses on the contributions page, but in the watchlist there are "+" and "-" entries that indicate the net change of an page's length (in bytes) as a result of a specific edit. For example, "(+21)" means that the edit increased the page length by 21 bytes and "(-610)" means that the edit reduced the page by a total of 610 bytes. --Orlady (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks that was it just wonder--Happypixie (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Merge

I add a little something to East Rock Park page and noticed that the East Rock page is almost the same should they be merged?? I do not feel my judgment is at a point where I could even think of making a call like that. I have this page on my watchlist Thanks. --Happypixie (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

one is the geographic and one is the park itself so just not sure--Happypixie (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The park and the ridge are not the same thing, so they have separate articles. This was done deliberately. They should not be merged. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you that is why I asked, you are a wonderful help! I will get the hang of it :) --Happypixie (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Help needed for a potential new article

Dear Orlady, Will you pls help me to make an article on "Medical College for Women and Hospital", the first medical college for women in Bangladesh. I need some guideline before I do that.Shoovrow (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Temple Israel

Hi Orlady. So, are you recommending deleting the older history of Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and moving it to Talk:Temple Israel? If so, would you do that, or should I? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you copied the material to the Talk: page. I guess that works too. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You added that comment while I was typing. As you have seen, I decided to copy that history to Talk:Temple Israel. I didn't see any harm in having it appear in both places -- and it may be helpful to keep it in both places, at least until the dust settles. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

hey what's going on, again

Orlady, there is nothing appropriate about you following me to the "Temple Israel" article, and butting in to revert an edit of mine, and yourself closing the Requested Move discussion that was ongoing. You have no business following me and doing that. What i had done was notice an apparently inappropriate move of a list-article in lieu of a split-out of one particular place listed on it, and I opened a proper process to get other opinions in a Requested Move. Given your previous history with me, you should not be following me around and interfering. There is no way you are a disinterested administrator. This is regarding what is currently located at Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)#Requested move. I am unsure what to do now, whether to open a new requested move or to un-close that, or ask for others' assistance one way or another. --doncram (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, you are welcome to ask for a review of my action there. For what it's worth, I think I was protecting you from making a fool of yourself. My only regret is that I was called away from my computer after I made the first edit to those articles, so I didn't get to close the move discussion 1-1/2 hours earlier. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, you proposed reversing a perfectly reasonable set of moves, and no-one agreed with you. You then apparently decided to undo the move yourself, not waiting for the outcome of the Move Request, which made the article ridiculous, and in the process, removed a great deal of valuable information from the Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) article. The Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) article has now been mostly re-written, with significantly more information, many more reliable sources. It's now three or four times the size of that stubby paragraph that existed in the Temple Israel article (and which was the only valuable piece of the article anyway); please stop damaging Wikipedia by removing or over-writing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I had no intent to lose a single iota of what you've developed in the Tulsa article. It just should be in a separate article from the list-article / SIA on Temple Israel, which should have its own edit history and Talk page and its history intact. It's not appropriate to wipe out a list-article that has existed since 2007, with no deletion proposal. The Requested Move would have eventually worked to bring in uninvolved editors, and this would have been resolved. I've asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Temple Israel. Your concern is, i believe, that the new article should be at "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" and that can be done without usurping the list-article and its history. --doncram (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Cain Fulling Mill and Elias Glover Woolen Mill Archeological Site

Don't know if you've noticed, but both Doncram and Polaron have broken 3RR here; I've decided that full protection for 24 hours would be more useful and less dramatic than blocking both. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. It's not exactly an important article... --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and .....

Dear Orlady, I am not in a good position with the institute, therefore having a hard time collecting informations on it. Sikder Women's Medical College is another institution for the same purpose, but that is a limited company. I shall be very grateful if you look at it time to time so that you can monitor my edits and suggest. Thanks again.Shoovrow (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cedar Hill edit

hi me again, :) Sorry :) ok you deleted a section from Cedar Hill (new Haven) stating

(Early settlement: clarified sourcing; info is not on page 10 of the print book (no text on page 10); removed unsourced hearsay and unsourced trivia about 17th -century will)

I may have put the wrong ref...this is what should of been there http://www.archive.org/stream/atwaterhistoryge04atwa#page/12/mode/2up/search/land pages 10-13 which gives the description at the bottom of page 12 but felt that the few pages where relevant for the entire ref. Now I don't want to put it back up if this is still wrong. One thing I am kind of starting to see as I research is a whole larger part of New Haven may be Cedar Hill than the part that are clearly documented. Until I can find real proof of that I will keep it at what I can document Thanks --Happypixie (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting -- and disconcerting. The pagination in your link does not match the pagination of the image of the published book at http://ia360620.us.archive.org/3/items/atwaterhistoryge02atwa/atwaterhistoryge02atwa.pdf .

Regardless of the pagination of the source, though, the details of the will of this man who died in 1692 are trivia that do not belong in an encyclopedia. (See WP:NOT.)

As for the boundaries of "Cedar Hill," I think it's best to keep the article focused on the modern neighborhood. Its history can include the fact (if verified by sources) that the name used to refer to a larger area, but don't try to treat those other areas as part of the neighborhood. --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again! oh and the cedar are the right ones. In fact a group I work with URI are trying to replaced them a few every year :) They forestry school at yale confirmed it--Happypixie (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your assistance

Can you review the DLR Group listing and offer your opinion as to if it has been revised correctly? Also, I beleive a disgruntled former employee is repeatidly vandalizing the listing. How can that be addressed?

Flatlanderks (talk)Flatlanderks —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

What is process for deleting the banner at the DLR Group page? Or, can you please provide direction as to how to make it more neutral? IS it simply adding more references? I am learning here and trying to follow process. The models I followed include Gensler, HKS, HOK, and SOM. This page appears to be at least on par with those.

Flatlanderks (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 6/22/10

Doncram, set lists, disambig pages

Hi Orlady,

Doncram is attempting to convert the disambiguation page to a "set list" again. If you could give your thoughts here: Talk:Temple Israel#Requested move 2 and disambiguation vs. set-index-article, I'd appreciate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

New Issue

Dear Orlady, I do not know how ethical it might be to ask you, but a help would be very nice for me. I made an article named "Death and Adjustment Hypotheses" at wiki. First it was truly of low quality and got deleted. When again I tried to reconstruct it, it had lack of references and got finally deleted by the user named King of Hearts. Later, I collected more reliable references and let him know that I am going to recreate it. He was not in support of it or against it either. But JzG deleted it with the reason that it was a deleted article, and nothing else. Later I've been requesting him to let me know what reference seemed inadequate or let me have the deleted article to see it for correction but I got no reply. He is sick a bit now, I know. Can you guide me in this issue, pls! I feel truly helpless as I lost the last copy of the article with my desktop computer. I want to proceed with the article but with due part that should not hamper wiki, and I need someone really expert with me.Shoovrow (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Leander Clark College

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

NRHP Infobox

Hey, could you copy the NRHP sandbox over to the template itself again? Sorry, but I found an error dealing with the handling of GA, WA, and DC categories (they all have non-standard cats – Category:Historic districts in Washington (U.S. state) as opposed to Category:Historic districts in Washington for example). This is causing some articles to be placed in redlinked categories based on non-standard locmapin parameters. See Category:Historic districts in USA Georgia for example. A simple #switch parser fixed the problem, and as soon as it's installed, these red categories will be wiped out. Thanks, and sorry I didn't catch this on the initial (two) edit(s). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your AfD close for List of renamed Indian public places

Thanks for your reasonable close on the AfD for List of renamed Indian public places, and for moving the page to the location determined by consensus. A few hours after you closed the AfD, Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) moved the page again, this time to List of renamed places in India (an alternate rewording of his original move). A very short and non-unanimous discussion had just started on the talk page, and Colonel Warden apparently claims that consensus was established there for his move. I have already left comments on his talk page and in the AfD comments about how his first move was disruptive, so he is fully aware that some editors find his actions disruptive. It is purposeful disruption to move the page again a few hours after an admin reverted his last move. Anyway, can you take a look at the situation and move the page back to List of renamed Indian cities and states if you feel that would be appropriate? I'm on my way out the door and don't have time to start an ANI thread, but I'll do so later if need be. Thanks. SnottyWong ^speak 23:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I restored the article name, and I move-protected the article to quell the move-warring. The current name might not be perfect, but this continual moving is disruptive. --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. SnottyWong ^chatter 06:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither propaganda nor advertising at Wikipedia, Can we agree ?

Dear Fellow; I love wikipedia and its positive influence. But we need to be careful to not use wikipedia as advertising nor propaganda.

Wikipedia must provide information, there are many ways to provide information as you know. In the case of The University of Northern Virginia; Why should we say that the university does not have any accreditation?!! They have accreditation and it is an international one , we can simply say they have these accreditation and certifications.

As you see, one creates negativity and propaganda and one delivers information only.

Please take this into consideration.

Thank you LD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leone-deluca (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Wikipedia should not describe the University of Northern Virginia as unaccredited, because the university's website states that it's accredited by the "American Council of University Accreditation". Not only is there no evidence that this entity is recognized as an accreditor, but I even can't find any evidence that it exists. (The only ghits on its name are to UNVA webpages, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia mirrors.)

Sorry, no dice!!! We can't agree!!!

In case you aren't aware of it, I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Project On Government Oversight

I see you've taken a bit of interest in this article. I'd like your advice. The organization POGO is notable, and has a long history of citation in news articles and other RS. But the article has horrific linkspam. My 7-day warning of pruning seems to have produced a small number of sources, but none for the vast ocean of links to the POGO website. The one editor who |declared to be with POGO has gone radio silent, and User:Dfreegov hasn't declared, but has spent their career inserting POGO-related content in articles. Thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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

08:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A humble request

Hi Orlady,

I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned input over these past many months on the Family Foundation School article. You may already be aware of this; but in the event you're not, I'm writing to alert you that the other neutral editor on the article (User:Sinneed), has evidently elected to WP:Vanish. I'm concerned that this may open the floodgates to the school's detractors running away with the article and landing us back where we were before you and he joined the article about 19 months ago.

I'd be grateful if you could keep this on your watchlist, and step in if things look to be getting out of hand (likewise keep me in line, if I step beyond the bounds of good editing).

Many thanks, again!

- Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Leander Clark-

The article refer to him as a representative. If he was in the Iowa Senate, Clark would had been refer to a senator. Also he was a county judge and that would had been a constitutional office of the State of Iowa. I hope you are doing well. I have been busy with adding articles of members of the Wisconsin Legislature, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, some Roman Catholic bishops-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another link [2] that also mention Leander Clark served in the Iowa House of Representatives 2 different times. I will try to add it on as a citation. I hope you are well-Many thanksRFD (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note-this is taken care of-Thanks-RFD (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim Hixson

You might be interested in this article about Kim Hixson. He was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee and went to school there. He moved to Whitewater, Wisconsin and taught at UW-Whitewater. He was elected to the Whitewater Common Council and then was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly. I hope you are doing well-Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

State Legislature databases

There are 3 articles: Davis Hanson Waite, Elijah Steele, and William Worrall Mayo that you might be interested in. All three served in their state legislatures and the articles have references connected to databases about past legislators. I am not sure if Tennessee or the Tennessee General Assembly has such a database also. If they do, please let myself know. Also Missouri&Iowa has databases about their past legislators also. Again I hope you are doing well. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I e-mailed an official of the Tennessee General Assembly once, and was told that nobody had ever compiled one, hard-copy or online. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks-you can also added Connecticut to the list. In Wisconsin the Legislative Research Bureau has complied a database as to who served in the Wisconsin Legislature. This was put out in 1999. More recently, there was a feature article about the Wisconsin Legislature in one of the most recent Wisconsin Blue Books and that has an updated list. Also the Bluebooks go back to the 1850s and you can browsed through them. Many thanks Orangemike for checking out the Tennessee General Assembly-Thank you Orlady-RFD (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising to me (as a transplant to Tennessee) that there is no master list of historical Tennessee state legislators. The closest thing to a good source on past legislators probably would be a state archive of old editions of the Tennessee Blue Book. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, sunuvagun! The Tennessee House has online lists going back to the 19th century at http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/ . The Senate also has archives, at http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/archives/ , but they only cover the last few sessions. --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Illinois has their bluebooks on the internet-it is very similiar to Wisconsin-their bluebooks are also on the computer. Makes it easier to hunt for members of their state legislatures and other major offices. As always I hope you are well-many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

I already watch Calamitybrook's talk page and have now added the center to my watchlist. I think it is possible that Calamitybrook may have some COI issues with that article, perhaps as a (former?) employee? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Calamitybrook has stated categorically on my talk page that he has no connection to the center, so I will WP:AGF. I am off to make a comment on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For somebody with no connection to the place, he sure has formed a strong distaste for it. At one time (probably somewhere in the talk page archives), he said that he formerly lived close by. That may explain the negative attitude. --Orlady (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you've expressed an interest in my personal life, will say that I lived in the region from 1970 to 1973. Kripalu arrived in 1983. What might that explain?

I've added most of the existing sources on article's current list. Some are flattering, some unflattering, & some are indifferent. Some have been removed with what I believe is inadequate justification.

This whole COI thing, with its implications of personal malfeasance and its reasoning akin to that of a witch-hunt, I do find rather dubious.

I'd actually prefer not have my person discussed at all; that discussion of Kripalu article be confined to its talk page, & also that individual editors not be personally & semi-privately solicited for contribution to article in question. Just my preference.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

It seems to me the best way to go regarding this article is to file an RfC as per WP:RFC and maybe leave messages relating to it on the talk pages of the WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Massachusetts, and any project which might relate to urban development, like water sources in general, like maybe WikiProject Environment. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All of my experience with Calamitybrook is that he takes a position and does not seem to ever change his mind, regardless. I keep hoping he will see what others are saying. I agree and RfC may be the way to go, if for no other rason than it may avoid his "canvassing" fears. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not had good experience with RFC -- the RFCs I've been involved with generally went nowhere. Regardless, there is a history of the Kripalu Center topic (including but not limited to the drinking water issue) being raised at noticeboards without getting much (if any) attention, and without leading to productive results. In addition to the February 2009 peer review (whose results Calamitybrook apparently didn't like), I found the following:

• Editor assistance requests March 2009
• NPOV noticeboard November 2009
• COI noticeboard December 2009 - That noticeboard discussion appeared to be productive, but the editing of the article and the behavior at the talk page did not actually change as a result.
• Wikiquette alerts January 2010
• Wikiquette alerts February 2010
• ANI February 2010

The one time that a noticeboard request seems to have resulted in feedback that truly resolved an issue is this RSN query from December 2009. I don't believe that another 15 minutes of noticeboard-type attention from another previously uninvolved editor (or two) is likely to change Calamitybrook's behavior, which is essentially to insist that he gets to write the article according to his own liking (except for the fact that he insists on someone else repairing his reference citations because he prefers not to learn to do that) unless others engage in continuous unproductive discussion with him. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not discuss this on relevant talk page? --"Calamity Brook"

71.235.237.175 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Because such comments do not meet WP:TPG, and it surprises me that you don't know that. Perhaps not knowing what material is and is not appropriate for article talk pages is part of the problem, and perhaps one of the reasons for such matters regarding your behavior being raised so often? But I do think that maybe having this individual be advised from other parties new to him, whom he perhaps cannot rush to dismiss in the somewhat knee-jerk response he has to the indications of his less-than-acceptable behavior, might be one of tne few ways to convey to him that his making comments which are completely unacceptable as per WP:TPG and other policies and guidelines and persisting in such behavior is one of the reasons he seems to have so much trouble working with others. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Masonic Buildings citation formatting

So that I don't do a whole page of citations incorrectly (and have to redo them yet again)... I have changed the citations for the three buildings in Arizona along the lines you suggested... Please check them out and let me know (on the article talk page) if they pass muster with you. If so I will continue down through the list. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Masonic buildings comment

Thanks for participating.

We are setting aside the scope issue for the moment, because finding valid sources will help to solve that. For example, whatever building it is in CT that's on the list, it was a "Masonic Temple" but went into NRHP as a synagogue because that's what it became. So it is likely that the scope and purpose of the list will change once we figure out where the sources are and what key questions develop as a result. Therefore, I see this sourcing issue as fundamental to the scope question. With no sources, it doesn't really much matter how anything is defined, because it's not verifiable. Step two is defining scope and purpose, and we will get to that.

Also, can you perhaps give me a stronger conclusion that what you have? This process is not quite an RFC - stating that you agree with doncram's statement doesn't really indicate to me which side you're leaning on (if at all), because you haven't addressed Blueboar's statement. What the result is doesn't matter to me, but we need definitive statements or we're never going to get past this with a solid conclusion that we can point to in the future. MSJapan (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not old discussion

Orlady, consumer protection may be a mask for the university or a true activity. But it is simply a fact for us. Why should we take it as more than that? Is it any enmity game? I am sorry that I screw it up with you but I simply do not understand why a fact shall be prevented from appearing, we are not here to judge possibilities. Can't you just clearly and simply mention it? Pls reply. This is new from my part.Shoovrow (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like I truly engaged myself in edit war and I could clarify it by discussion. I am sorry for that. I shall be glad if you still come forward to help me.Shoovrow (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jersey College for Girls

Thanks for declining the speedy--I didn't want to do that myself since I had essentially written all the content. You also deleted the link to the the AfD--was that accidental? (I've now voted keep, but others certainly have the right to disagree.) Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Harry T. Burn

Here is another article you might find interesting: Harry T. Burn. He served in both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly. He cast the deciding vote that ratified the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution because his mother asked him to. I worked on this article. The problem with the article was that there was a list of newspaper articles at the end of the article and no citations. I kept the list and added the citations. I hope you are doing well-Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about Harry Burn. I'm the one who added information about him to the 19th Amendment article. I appreciate your interest in suggesting new projects for me, but I'm afraid I really don't have the time and interest to pursue these things. --Orlady (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi Orlady, would you be interested in copyediting Albany, New York for me? I'm going to bring it to peer review and hope to get it to FA reasonably soon. Note that the Nightlife and Artistic Community sections are still a work in progress, just so you know. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. upstateNYer 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John W. Shumaker

Hello! Your submission of John W. Shumaker at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pity the Fool

Dear Orlady

I put up a page called 'Pity the Fool' about 3 to 4 months back, the admins requested the page for speedy deletion because the page had no evidence that the band is notable according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please see my recent comment, I had to wait for a new Ptf song to be released and now it is on the charts, please can you assist me in getting the page up again. Thank you

Kind regards Daniel RaubenheimerDanielptf (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You've made this request elsewhere[3][4][5] and signed yourself Daniel Raubenheimer. That's a member of the band to which you're referring. If you're him, you shouldn't be involved in creating the article, 'cause it's conflict of interest, dude. Just sayin'. Also, new comments go at the bottom of a talk page, just so's you know. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

David_Allen_(game_designer)

Orlady, I notice that you made some edits in the David_Allen_(game_designer) article recently. An editor that is apparently another Derek Smart surrogate [6] has edited David_Allen_(game_designer) with what I consider problematic edits. Some background information is that Mr. Smart is currently involved in a civil suit with Mr. Allen. The David Allen article appears to me to contain multiple violations of policy. Derek Smart surrogates have been problematic in the past, something near a half dozen accounts banned since the ArbCom case. [7] I suggest that semi-protecting the David Allen article may be considered. I would really appreciate attention to this matter. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Bill Huffman (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the article after seeing your message on Hipocrite's talk page. I flagged that last edit by Wildcar999 as having "failed verification" and deleted it just now because I could not find support for the defamatory statements there. I don't know enough about the subject matter to contribute productively, however, and I don't think the article is a good candidate for protection because it seldom gets edited. --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Perhaps it should be nominated for deletion but my main concern was the defamatory statements and you have removed them. Thank you again, Bill Huffman (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[8] Orlady, your help in ensuring that this on-wiki pursuit of an apparent off-wiki feud does not continue is appreciated, at least by me. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John W. Shumaker

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this hook's DYK appearance was essentially in the middle of night in Tennessee and Kentucky (2 am to 8 am Eastern time; 1 am to 7 am Central), it will be interesting to see how much attention it got. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Alexander Mabry, Jr.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Southern States University

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

Some context

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

To put my position in context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm

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

Trying for a neutral addition

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

doncram reported again...

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

Another sock of the New Rochelle guy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Journal Record Building

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

Thanks

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

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

Discussion of unaccredited institutions at WP:COI/N

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

Masonic Temple (Lahore)

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Little Red Schoolhouse

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

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

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

John Grieve (police officer)

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

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

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

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

Legal consideration

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

Thank you!

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

Old Main, Knox College

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

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

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

DYK for Eureka Masonic College

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

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

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

Rigel0 talk redirect

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

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

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

New Article

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

Another new article

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

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

Bing (search engine)

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

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

Possible harassment

Hi Orlady,

I recently nominated this article [9] for deletion. I have seen you have had dealings with the editor calamitybrook before. Despite my polite answers she seems to be determined to disrupt the discussion with her left-handed accusations directed at me. Any advice would be helpful, but I suppose the trouble will all go away eventually on its own. Wlmg (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A humble notion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barbara Thompson

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

more Masonic stuff

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

DYK nomination of Windsor Mountain School

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

Appalachia

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

Nicholas Benson

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

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

DYK for Windsor Mountain School

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

3RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Educational vs. Education in Educational accreditation

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

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

Requested moves

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

Higher education accreditation

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

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

Educational accreditation

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

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

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

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

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

3RR warning for Educational accreditation

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

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

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

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

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

Your proposal to merge Pre-tertiary education accreditation

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

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

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

Attack!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3RR at List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations

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

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

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

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