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)

Ocoee No. 3 mess

Orlady:

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

Cemeteries on the National Register

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

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

Memorial Park Cemetery, Memphis

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

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

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

Hi

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

Category Burials in Tennessee

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

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

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

New DYK template for nominations

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Kansas...er...Kentucky

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

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

Title typos

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

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

Tone and other issues between Orlady and Doncram

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

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

photo concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WVOX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Automotive Intelligence companies

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

edit warring

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

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

Furniture on the NRHP?

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

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

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

Cheerleader image

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Primary Elementary School

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

FFS Testimonies

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

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

Rural Cemetery Act

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

Rural Cemetery Act

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

Edit War

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

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

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

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

DYKcheck bug

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

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

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

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

Austrått DYK

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memphis articles in need of attention

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

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

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

The Two Sides of the Story barnstar

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

The Half Barnstar ... always. doxTxob \ talk

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

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

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

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

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

A question

Hey Orlady, would you have any objection to being nominated as an admin? Editors like you should have more tools at their disposal, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to suggest the same thing. Let me know if you're nominated, and I'll gladly give a strong-support. Bms4880 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wear Valley

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

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

Wears Valley - thanks

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

DYK for Rural Cemetery Act

On February 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rural Cemetery Act, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Email

Please check your inbox. Shubinator (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Shubinator (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work with University of Atlanta

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