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)

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)

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)

The Saguache Crescent

17:40, March 1, 2014 Orlady moved page Talk:The Saguache Crescent to Talk:Saguache Crescent over redirect (Removing definite article -- see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) for the reasons)

You're wrong. please undo your move. Eric Corbett 17:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why haven't you sorted this out yet? Eric Corbett 13:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Too many administrators believe themselves to be infallible, even quoting policy and guidelines they've obviously never read, as you did in this case. What would you suggest as a kinder way of saying "you're a wanker"? Eric Corbett 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Eric's comments. However I do find this comment unprofessional: "I might have returned to this a bit sooner if the comments on my talk page had been a bit "nicer". Just saying." Why should my article be held up because of something that Eric said, though I can't imagine what he said that offended you. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says we are "professional" around here? I am not paid for this. I edit Wikipedia and I do DYK reviews for free -- and most of my DYK reviews are never claimed for QPQ credit.

In interacting with humans who are volunteering their time, you need to account for some human psychology -- including the existence of human emotions. Most (more likely all) of us have conflicting demands for our time (Wikipedia is not the most important thing in my life) and most (if not all) of us have emotions that we can't always account for. If a request here rubs me the wrong way, it reduces the chance that I'm going to be motivated to drop everything and respond. If this were a professional assignment for me, I would suck it up and respond immediately, but this isn't a professional assignment, so I don't feel I have to do that. Anyway, by the time I responded to this request, I was no longer feeling grumpy about it, which probably was a better thing for all of us. --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Being an infallible administrator Orlady found it difficult to admit that she was wrong, and childishly held up your DYK review in retaliation. Just the way it is here. Eric Corbett 23:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Orlady sure does believe in her infallibility. This talk thread[1] is very interesting. Multiple editors have told her that telling an administrator to resign isn't a personal attack but she has yet to admit she was wrong with this edit[2]....William 00:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ernest O. Wollan

Thank you from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Hackney Chapel AME Zion Church

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Template:Did you know nominations/ThePsychoExWife.com

I'm going by this statement: "Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose)". You could always modify the template and put yourself as nominator. I've commented on your talk page as I don't want the nom to be crowded with a wall of text not related to its promotions. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That statement describes the reality that only autoconfirmed users can create a template. That was drafted as an explanatory statement and added to the DYK information pages sometime after the current template-based nomination mechanism was created (before that, nominations were created directly on the noms page, which anyone can edit). I can see why you interpreted that statement to indicate that submission of DYK nominations is some sort of right or privilege that is limited to autoconfirmed users, but that was never the intent. DYK has always encouraged the participation of anonymous contributors. --Orlady (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested that anons should be "block[ed] ... from participating in DYK". As you quite rightfully summarized on the nom page they are free to recommend nominations at the DYK project talk page. However I'll defer to your explanation of the situation. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Belated thanks

I know this is very late but I wanted to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that demonstrated fairness and compassion regardless of how they voted. Its the feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back. So, thank you for your participation and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to continuing to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cranial nerve

Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this nomination and see if it is ready for approval. The initial review was done by that IP-hopper who posted to WT:DYK last week, and I'd like someone who is clearly judging based on DYK rules to make sure it meets our criteria—the fact that "citation needed" templates were not considered important enough to have corrected prior to approval makes me wonder what else might have been overlooked. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Helen Fraser (feminist)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have just been informed by a bot that there had been a discussion about an article that I had created and you had contributed to at Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Fraser (feminist) because of a particular fact that I included. It was nice to have been informed of this and it would have been nicer to have been informed of this before the discussion had been closed and a decision reached. I appreciate that as the nominator, the responsibility was not yours. It occurs to me that you may be interested in helping address an issue that I think important. I have a view about how the role of women has been undervalued by history and I think wikipedia has a moral duty to rectify this but has policies that prevent this from happening. I would be happy to ellaborate on this to the relevant person/people. Graemp (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Graemp. Discussion of your concerns about the DYK appearance seems to have occurred on several different pages, and it took me some time to sort it all out. The WP:DYK feature exists primarily to bring attention to new and newly expanded articles, as well as new Good articles. It does this by presenting interesting facts from those articles on the main page. I nominated the Helen Fraser article for DYK after seeing it on a list of new articles. Before I nominated the article, I checked the sources that I could access and I did some editing to the article, including revisions to eliminate what I perceived to be WP:Close paraphrasing of sources.

The statement in the article that I found most interesting for DYK was (in the original article version) "In 1922 she was the first woman to be adopted in Scotland as a parliamentary candidate when she was selected as National Liberal candidate for the Govan Division of Glasgow for the 1922 General Election." The wording of that sentence was confusing, so I looked at sources to make sure I understood what was meant by "being adopted in Scotland as a candidate". In the National Dictionary of Biography I found "After the war Helen was employed as a commissioner for National Savings, resigning in 1922 to stand as the Liberal candidate for Govan, the first woman to be adopted as an official candidate in Scotland." After reading that, I added the word "official" to the sentence in the article. It was clear to me that she was a candidate for UK parliament. When I wrote the hook I retained the wording "in Scotland" to ensure consistency with the sources (I thought there was a remote possibility that a woman "in England" had previously been named as a candidate to represent Scotland, so I didn't want to say "from Scotland"). In retrospect, it's apparent that the words "candidate for parliament in Scotland" could be misunderstood as indicating that she was a candidate for parliament of Scotland (that didn't occur to me because such a parliament didn't exist in her time), but several people (including me, as well as User:Victuallers, who you contacted about this) didn't think of that possibility. It's not uncommon for people who are familiar with a topic to fail to see how someone else could misinterpret their words; linking the word "parliament" to the UK parliament was a good "fix" to indicate the meaning.

You are hardly alone in thinking that Wikipedia needs to do a better job with women's history. I suggest that you get involved with the Women's History WikiProject here. (I have, however, been dismayed to find that the W.H. Wikiproject seems to have a restrictive definition of "history," such that most accomplishments by women in the last few decades are considered to be outside its scope.) --Orlady (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Victuallers asked me if I had done any similar articles and I flagged up Ursula Williams, but I understand that DYK runs a set of criteria that means it is 'too late' for this article to be nominated. If you are involved with promoting womens history month, this is the sort of article that might have an appeal. Graemp (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a learning curve involved in contributing to DYK -- starting with understanding those esoteric rules for article eligibility. Now that you've had this introduction, I look forward to your contributions in the future -- we are always looking for interesting content about women (not just in Women's History Month, but pretty much every day of the year). --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Marie Dollinger

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/USA Freedom Act

Orlady, I was wondering whether you were planning to come back to this one now that Wnt has responded to your concerns, or if I should instead call for a new reviewer. If the latter, please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Dear Orlady, I hope this finds you well. I have created Mohammad Samir Hossain at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Samir_Hossain. Will you please help me edit and make it a better article or stub! I know you are really an expert author having due knowledge on editing at wiki. Thanks Shoovrow Shoovrow (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Old Deery Inn

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tobias Arlt, Tobias Wendl

Orlady, we have the situation here that a pair of articles about a team of two lugers, both named Tobias, had their articles expanded with effectively the same 600+ character Olympics section (plus other material specific to each person), and each just barely makes the 5x expansion using that repeated material. Is this something where we could (or should) do an IAR and let both names (and articles) be bolded, or require that one of them be unbolded? (Another reviewer felt that the articles were padded a bit to get them up and over the 5x level.) Can you please take a look and decide what ought to be done? I've superseded the tick because of the duplicative expansion (which was only part of the new material), and will defer to your wisdom here. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Expanded

Dear Orlady, I am glad that you went through the article. I have further expanded it. Will you be kind enough to pen through it a bit. Remember its Mohammad Samir Hossain. Take Care.Shoovrow (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for St. Paul's Episcopal Church (Chattanooga, Tennessee)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

New Change

Dear, Thanks for your kind help in editing Mohammad Samir Hossain. I have tried to change the lead sentence and this time its exactly as the reference presents, and the reference is also mentioned beside the word that can create question about verifiability. Still, if you feel like changing anything I shall always welcome. This time I have uploaded a free photo and I don't mind if the previous copyrighted one gets deleted to uphold wiki rule. Thanks. Bolton007 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the Givhan DYK

You do realize, though, that one of the secondary sources you found, that William & Mary law review article, is in the article as a source (see note 52, the very last one). Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sunuvagun! However, I discounted that "Analysis and Commentary" section. I was hoping to see secondary sources get used to help support the parts of the article that describe the case, the opinion, and subsequent jurisprudence. --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As you noted, there's still a lot of uncertainty there. I generally feel that most judges (or, let's be honest, their clerks) write in clear enough prose that summarizing and paraphrasing their opinions, with generous quotation, is sufficient. As for secondary sources, it's later decisions interpreting that decision that generally make the interpretation that counts (Honestly, I would class most appellate or higher opinions as secondary sources by our standards to begin with since, after all, they are really little more than commentary and analysis of the lower-court decision.

At some point in the future I might expand the article somewhat; I'd shore up the sources at that point. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Whitesell House and Farm

I just saw your WT:NRHP discussion with Dudemanfellabra regarding the Jesse Whitesell House and Farm, as well as the stub you created. As the photographer for the images currently in the article, I can tell you that it's rather confusing on the ground, too; I wasn't quite clear what I should photograph in order to get elements of both the original and the increase. If I correctly understand your words, I agree with what you've said: although it was originally located just in Kentucky, it needs to be listed as a duplicate because the increase causes the listing to include resources on both sides of the border. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Nyttend. Your photos are, of course, the best part of the article I created. :-) --Orlady (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for St. Marks Presbyterian Church (Rogersville, Tennessee)

Victuallers (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Poultry

Orlady, can you please take this one under your wing? Nikkimaria had some objections, and I'm not entirely sure they've been answered. There was a suggestion at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Poultry that someone be found to look over sources—perhaps you could do whatever might be appropriate? If not, I think this one will remain stalled for the foreseeable future. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Was it the bad pun that put you off? ;-) If you aren't interested, I can certainly try to find someone else, maybe Crisco when he's fully recovered. Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I started looking at it, but it was a bigger job than I had time for at the moment, and I forgot about it... Maybe I'll get to it soon. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the size of it. If you can get back to it, that would be great. Thank you so much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hackney Chapel

Any idea what this photo has to do with Hackney Chapel? I uploaded it to Commons (it's from 1912), but I wasn't sure how it was related to the church, other than being located in Unitia. Bms4880 (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you have the right idea regarding "both being located in Unitia". Unitia School apparently was the black school in Unitia. There's a little bit of information about it in the sources for the Hackney Chapel article, but the sources didn't clearly indicate a relationship (unlike St. Marks Presbyterian Church (Rogersville, Tennessee) or Durham's Chapel School, where there is a strong connection between church and school).

The Middle Tennessee State University folks had (or possibly still have) a major project to survey historical black churches. Since other community institutions were closely related to the churches, I guess it seemed natural to their archivist to put that school photo into the same bin as the materials about the local black church. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mt. Zion Christian Methodist Episcopal Church

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this by accident. Good work, especially since I appreciate my photos getting used :-) Did you find anything about whether the congregation is still in existence? Between the dilapidated appearance and the damaged historical marker (I vaguely remember seeing something about the marker getting hit by a truck), I got the impression that it wasn't used for religious purposes anymore. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find anything when I researched the article, but after seeing your note, I looked again. I've updated the article. :-) --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice work

You did a nice job of expanding Christ Temple AME Zion Church to good Start level. Ammodramus (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Durham's Chapel School

Hello! Your submission of Durham's Chapel School 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! czar ♔ 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Durham's Chapel School

Thanks for this contribution from me and the DYK projectVictuallers (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Question on WT:DYK#Rings of Chariklo

Orlady, there's a big discussion going on here, with the creator of the article wondering whether it's eligible.

it looks like this new discovery of the rings was initially added to the article on Chariklo on March 25, and then decided that it was better split off into its own article on March 27, with a bit of information left behind. The obvious question: since the material is effectively new as of March 25, does the newly split article on March 27 count as new, or is it a 5x expansion? And if 5x, is the expansion based on the material left behind, or on the material brought over intact? (Not all of the March 27 material, 1448 prose characters worth, is copied.) The article has been expanded since the original post to the DYK talk page, and it's now at 4849 prose characters.

I figure you'd probably be best at parsing this out. My advice was to get the nomination in now. Either it qualifies as new or it might already qualify as 5x depending on how much has been copied. Even if it doesn't qualify in terms of either, I imagine that it's close. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Maximilian Liebenwein

Orlady, Gerda's latest comment contains the phrase "your turn", so I think she wants/needs/is expecting you to take the next step. Can you please take a look to see what needs to be done? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Orlady, I hereby bestow upon you The Barnstar of Diligence for your continued commitment to maintaining the quality and excellence of Wikipedia's Did you know project. I've been a big fan of your contributions for many years now, and so I felt that it was fitting to commend your efforts with this small token of my esteem! -- Caponer (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Caponer! As you know, however, I am only one of many -- and some of the others are far more diligent. --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/ThePsychoExWife.com

Orlady, the creator has asked a question here, in a response to your previous comment. Did you want to answer it, or should I put out a call for a new reviewer? Please let me know if it's the latter. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That article had some gnarly issues with POV -- and also problems with presentation and sourcing. Rather than attempt a discussion with an elusive IP user, I've been editing it on-again and off-again (to the extent that my time and my limited patience with tabloid sources and opinionated blogs allow): edits since the anon's last comment. It's getting close to being ready. --Orlady (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know it's being taken care of (and I very much understand about limited patience in that circumstance). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Philip Lindsley

Thank you for this article Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glenville, Schenectady County, New York may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• name="GlenvilleHist">{{cite web|url=http://www.schenectadyhistory.org/resources/citycounty.html#gle] |title=Chapter V: The Township of Glenville |work=History of the City and County of Schenectady,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited!

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

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

DYK for Adelia Armstrong Lutz

Thanks from → Call me Hahc21) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at DC788's talk page.
Message added 21:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 21:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm bothered by this post[3] of yours too. You accuse of someone of using multiple accounts. Where's your proof and why haven't you started an SPI? Didn't I hear someone not too long ago say 'serious allegations require serious evidence'?...William 22:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not sockpuppetry when the former account is not currently blocked and is not currently in use. But I know a WP:DUCK when I see one, especially with all the IP ducks we've seen. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Blogs fail WP:RS

Please read WP:SPS before editing into the United Bates of America anything that is sourced from a blog....William 02:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• [4] --Orlady (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• • And what's that supposed to mean?...William 03:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm campaigning against you now. That and your link above are possible proof of you violating WP:CIVIL You still ignore WP:SPS. For the second time, explain how a wedding announcement and miscarriage are trivia and helping in a campaign and who somebody supports for President isn't? Maybe I should be preparing an ANI post when I get up in the morning....William 03:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about a television show. What has happened to these people since the show went off the air isn't relevant to the show. Stars on tv shows, marry divorce have kids etc. after their show goes off the air, but it isn't in the article on the show. Take The Andy Williams Show for just one example. A biography article on the Bates is where it would belong. If its RSd. FWIW Musdan77 thanked me for cutting the trivia and other things out of the article....William 04:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

FTR, the edit that Musdan77 thanked you for was an edit whose main effect was to revert one of the edits in which DC788 had added a lot of the trivia that DC788 had been adding -- and I had been deleting -- over a period of several days. --Orlady (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new about you campaigning against me. You already declared your intention [5][6] to follow my work looking for actions that you could attack me for. I refer in particular to your statement that 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!

As for the article, I started it as an article about the family (who are local to my county) before the TV series existed, but after the family seemed to have established notability due to their appearances on another reality TV show. Someone else later recast it as an article about the show. Many of my edits to the article have been aimed at removing unsourced personal details about family members that were added by fans; I've also sparred with this particular user, who has unusual theories about the need for reference citations to describe TV shows, and who believes that information that possibly could be extracted from studying a table should not be presented in text. As for the family, the family continues to receive a lot of attention (partly because continues to appear on that other reality TV show) and family members have been taking advantage of their reality-TV fame for political activities, including their widely documented support for Rick Santorum. The marriage has been in the article for some time, but enthusiasts keep trying to add redundant statements about it, accompanied by information about blog "announcements" of positive pregnancy tests and subsequent miscarriages. I continue to contend that even though a 22-year-old woman announces a miscarriage during the first 3 months of pregnancy in her family blog, that is still a bit of fundamentally private information that does not deserve to be preserved in an encyclopedia; apparently the other user agrees, as they also stopped adding that detail. --Orlady (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Undoing editor's work when they don't follow WP:SPS is something I do.(Not counting UBOA, at least 7 times in my last 5,000 edits[7]) I've written about the use of blogs as sources on my user page. Your failure at that, WP:CIVIL aka responding to my concerns with a link to CNN story about sadistic trolls, WP:IDHT ignoring multiple times my concerns with your edits, and WP:AGF is appalling. Your contradictory behavior at United Bates of America raises WP:COMPETENCE concerns or questions whether you're practicing WP:OWN. Example- You have labelled the same source both not a RS[8] and yourself used it[9] as a source. I'm practicing WP policy but you think its a campaign against you. The only campaign being done against you is the one you yourself are practicing....William 13:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

When you declared 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!, you clearly indicated why you are now scrutinizing me. This isn't random interest on your part.

As for your accusation of contradictory behavior, I believe you are confusing me with someone else. On what basis did you determine that I was responsible for that second diff of yours? That edit was by IP user 38.108.87.20. As it happens, that's one of the IPs used by the person who is currently editing as DC788. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You're really very paranoid. I'm fixing wrong edits but you think its malicious. As I said above 'The only campaign being done against you is the one you yourself are practicing.'...William 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want people to assume that your actions are motivated by personal animus, I suggest that you stop making statements like this and this. --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick WP:RDH-style question

Thanks for the comment at my talk. On a totally unrelated matter, as you've probably guessed if you've looked at my latest series of major edits to NR lists, I'm planning another photo trip, which will take me almost through your neck of the woods as well as through lots of other areas all over the place. As far as you're aware right now, are there any big construction projects (or other plannable things, versus problems like car accidents) on I-75 between Chattanooga and Knoxville? The goal is to go to church in Dayton on the morning of the 20th and then go a little past the Cumberland Gap that afternoon; I especially don't feel like getting stuck in a traffic jam if it's something that all the locals (and semi-locals like you) already know about. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)