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)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Chivalry: Medieval Warfare.
Message added 12:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Odie5533 (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You could be a fell runner

	Carrying on in the face of adversity
	Thank you for your perseverance 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

Please help me save the pages Robotics Design and ANAT technology. I am being assaulted by people that make accusations and votes but present no worthy evidence. Democracy in this case is that of a raccoon and a fox voting to eat a squirrel, and this is unlawful, unfair, unreasonable, and I need help. Thanks.Canadiansteve (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Flagler Hospital.
Message added 02:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Shiue

Hi Orlady. Thanks for commenting on DYK nomination. Following your comment, I did some copyediting. Please revisit the article Ming Sen Shiue and let me know what you think. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Northcentral University

Hi Orlady, You recently undid a deletion I made on the Northcentral University page. I'd like to pursue this further.

The statement about the US Dept of Ed requiring a letter of credit from Northcentral is in the History section which I contend does not belong. In addition, Nortcentral had a change of ownership and control in December of 2008. The accounting treatment for transactions of this kind negatively affects the Department of Education's financial responsibility ratio. Therefore, any University undergoing a change in ownership is highly unlikely to pass the financial responsibility ratio for a number of years. For institutions in situations such as this, the U.S. Department of Education provides alternative options to demonstrate financial responsibility, including an option to obtain a letter of credit. Our initial letter of credit requirement from 2009 through September of 2011 was to post a letter of credit in the amount of 50% of the prior year's student financial aid. In 2011, the University had a favorable annual financial audit report and showed continued strength in the its ability to generate positive cash flow. The U S Department of Education decided to reduce the amount of the letter of credit requirement considerably. The University believes that based on our ability to obtain the required letter of credit and other measures of financial strength, our financial stability is strong, and our recurring earnings are more than sufficient to meet our current and future obligations and continue to make heavy investment in the quality and delivery of our educational offerings.

Also, the composite financial score is not a reflection of the quality of education at a given school. Furthermore, 180 are also listed as not meeting the composite financial score requirements and I do not see an entry in Wikipedia stating such. I don't see the value in the entry.

Lastly, I will be making additional changes and updates to the Northcentral University. I am a fairly new wikipedia user and will make my best effort to follow the guidelines and terms of use but would appreciate your guidance in the area. Thank you for your time.

Myjourneyaz (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)myjourneyaz

As I advised you on your talk page, Wikipedia requires reliable sources for content. You deleted reliably sourced information because you say it is incorrect, but you have not provided a reliable source for your information. Further, as I advised you on your talk page, Talk:Northcentral University is the appropriate place to discuss this. I am copying this conversation there. --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 02:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 02:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK review

Sorry I created a little extra work for you. I assumed that you had reviewed everything after seeing the apparent approval of a new reviewer (which eventually turned out to actually not be there at all), but, in these days where accountability seems to be of utmost importance, it's very good that you specifically added your note of approval, especially since the discussion at that point was in a state of controversy. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is probably going to get lost on the DYK talk page

But may I draw your attention here? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom credit

Reinhard Febel is now on the Main page. A few minutes before, Scarabocchio inserted a beautiful table to that article. Is there any way to credit him as author3 in retrospect. He actually supplied the most valuable part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tea

I notice that a certain recently promoted DYK article refers to sources that appear to be about the same subject as the article itself. It may be safer to restrict articles that appear on the front page to topics about which nothing has ever been written, so there is no possibility of infringing copyright. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL --Orlady (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK compound of three octahedra

In Template:Did you know nominations/Compound of three octahedra you wrote: "Unfortunately, the Stars article doesn't qualify as a 5x expansion, as calculated using DYKcheck and related tools. I unbolded it." However, when I run DYKcheck it tells me "DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations." Since accounting for a copyvio is exactly the issue here (as already stated in the original nom), I wonder how you persuaded DYKcheck to account for that — it seems like it would be useful information to add to the script documentation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Hi Orlady, this barnstar is for all those exquisite minor edits you do, especially what you did for Garageland so it could be featured at DYK. Thanks! - benzband (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, really :) ~ benzband (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Glenorchy Parish Church; River Orchy

Hello Orlady. I appreciate the time you've spent researching and editing Glenorchy Parish Church and River Orchy. I was a bit despondent after dealing with recent DYK remarks and didn't want to taint these articles much more than the subsequent edits that I did make. However, your detailed comments were put so kindly that I'll give the river article some attention tomorrow. Thank you for being kind. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred E. Jackson

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Saragosi

Hi Orlady - thank you for the recognition for saving Saragosi. My next task is to look at "Glenorchy Parish Church and River Orchy". I'd like to get these accepted but I think some of your comments are a bit harsh?? Solitary rural hotels in England are way markers. (Although I see that the current Dalmally hotel is of modern construction) There are also some factoids that may be improvable.... thats why other editors are asked to pile in? Would you consider moving your comments on this article to the article's talk page and give it a tick? If there are aspects that are definately outside DYK rules then I'll see if I can fix them. Victuallers (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Tadeusz Wrona (aviator)

You closed the merger discussion at Talk:LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16 as no consensus to merge Tadeusz Wrona (aviator) into that article, but I don't follow your reading of the discussion. Particularly you said that the award on 7th November was crucial to the independent notability, but that didn't change anybody's opinion at all! Those who were arguing individual notability beforehand still argued independent notability afterwards, those (including me) who don't believe in his individual notability explicitly detailed why an award for this event didn't count as independent from it. All the arguments for opposing the merger were countered with reasons why they were not reasons to oppose, several as they were arguments against deletion not arguments against a merger, most of the others because they were not evidence of individual notability. The same is not true of the arguments to merge, based principally on the WP:BLP1E policy, which were generally ignored or handwaved away. Thryduulf (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Twitter status message Template

This is a template to generate a direct link to the Twitter status message. You can use this template to navigate directly to the Tweet or to refer someone directly to any Tweet in your wiki. You can use this template freely wherever you need to refer any tweets/twitter users of Twitter#Features for your external references or some other places. --Jenith Michael Raj (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Twitter_status

DYK for Son of God (TV series)

Hi there Orlady. I notice that you've promoted the DYK nomination for Son of God and moved it into prep area 1. I was wondering whether it might be worth holding the nom until Christmas Day, because of its obvious reference to Jesus. Is it too late to do that? Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 08:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, is there any particular reason why the image that I nominated alongside the hook is not currently being used? Thanks again. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for all your work helping to get Caerthillian to Kennack through DYK! Cheers, Zangar (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Potsdam Sandstone

Thanks for the tweaks to the position and content of the Potsdam sandstone pics that I added - particularly my typo! I also wanted to mention that some recent changes have been made to the stratigraphy ... specifically, the term Potsdam sandstone (a term that does not follow the conventions of the North American Stratigraphic Code) has been dropped in favor of Ausable or Covey Hill Formations. There is a big debate about this nomenclature, with folks from the GSC favoring one set of terms and people from the NYS Museum favoring another. Frankly, I think that launching into this in Wikipedia would only confuse things, but it might be worth briefly mentioning the formal stratigraphic units that make up the Potsdam sandstone and referring the reader to the appropriate literature. Perhaps entries for the formal terms could be set up to redirect to the Potsdam sandstone entry. The competing nomenclature is nicely summarized in Figure 3 of Hagadorn, J. W., Collette, J. H., and Belt, E. S., 2011, Eolian-aquatic deposits and faunas of the Middle Cambrian Potsdam Group: Palaios, v. 26, no. 5, p. 314-334. If you agree, I would be happy to take a stab at this over the coming weeks (plus add a few more pics showing the details of the rock itself). Please let me know what you think! Rygel, M.C. (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at A Thousand Doors's talk page.
Message added 16:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Constant Puyo

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George Tchobanoglous

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Damerius

Apologies for removing your comment; I had not realized that you did the promotion and the comment in the same edit. Regarding your edit summary: you're not expected to be perfect, but that was a bit of a quick turn-around. No big deal, though, everyone makes mistakes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Adolphe Braun

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Appalachia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to The Trail of the Lonesome Pine

Buck Wild (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Jackass

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Letters of Vincent van Gogh

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tanglish

Orlady (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 08:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK now

If you could improve Q1, could you also improve the Main page as had been suggested (then Q6) on WT:DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Working on John Crockett (frontiersman)

Hi, I'm trying to address some of your concerns but I have a few questions. Can you take a look? --AW (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Froebel star.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know you're busy... please have a look again if you've got time. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

an unsolicited suggestion re: DYKQs

Hello, Orlady.

Here's an unsolicited suggestion: Pls sign with ~~~ instead of ~~~~ in {{DYKbotdo}} at the top of each DYKQ. Otherwise, the DYK bot will post the DYK credits on your behalf with your signature next to two time-stamps indicating two different times and dates. (example)

Hope this helps. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, Orlady. Don't worry too much about it. It's a very easy misclick to make. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A drink for you!

File:Jack daniels 5cl.jpg	A TN-approved beverage for Orlady
	Thanks for all your work at DYK! Drmies (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring List of animals with fraudulent diplomas quickly

-Lexein (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry is "List of animals with fraudulent diplomas", not "List of animals with fraudulent diplomas who have managed to make it into the (more or less reputable) media and thus had their existence (or, to be more strictly accurate, unconfirmed reports of their existence) verified beyond the narrow ambit of those humans who knew them". Brooks's existed, was (fraudulently) ordained by the Universal Life Church, and died a year ago as by far the longest-lived of the litter. The others (Boodles, Guinness, Murphy, Tatiana and Baboushka) were variously killed by cars, feline cancer and foxes. Brooks's satisfied the entry's criteria, and surely deserves Wikipedia immortality. His ordination provided considerable amusement, not least in the form of the framed certificate above his feeding-bowl. I therefore (gently!) deplore your edit! Cordially, Sheherezade Fong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherefong (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(Excuse the stalking) - Sherefong, I was thanking Orlady for restoring the article name. About "Brooks's", do you have some news or magazine article(s) to support the story? This could even be a local or community newspaper. Inclusion criteria for the article require at the moment, at least one reliable source, to satisfy WP:Verifiability policy. Please don't take the deletion of a new item for lack of a source personally. --Lexein (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

List of animals with fraudulent diplomas

Shall we just boldly standardize all the pet names with the owner's last names? --Lexein (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if you agree with the above suggestion? --Lexein (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked your message earlier. My answer is "No." Use the names given by the sources. Regardless, this kind of thing should be discussed on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - seemed like you and I have been the voices of reason there, given the recent activity. --Lexein (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1804 Haiti Massacre

Orlady (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Aboakyer Festival (DYK)

Thanks for the review of my DYK, I have addressed the issues you raised and have largely re-written the article. Would be grateful if you could review it again and accord the right DYK tag. Thanks a lot too for the work done on the Fancy Dress Festival DYK. A friend called  CrossTempleJay  → talk 10:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Family Foundation School

Possibly some socking going on this page again.[1] I left the IP a little note on his page since it concerns you. [[2]]--Wlmg (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Update

I can complete it if you wish (up to you). Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to let you complete it! I wasn't focused on this! --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And I completely forgot to check for the bot to update. Thanks for noticing! I'll inform Shubinator, complete this update and watch for next one. Materialscientist (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sentence in lead of nicknames in Ohio

It really does sound like an original research statement. If you can't provide a citation for a statement (particularly with regard to the 'who' is making these claims)then it certainly seems suspect. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That sentence appears in roughly 50 articles, not just the one where you deleted it. The main article where it exists is List of city nicknames in the United States, where a variant form of that sentence appeared as early as this edit in June 2006. (The nicknames of Ohio article is one of many that were split from the U.S. article, and are transcluded into that article.) Instead of edit-warring over whether the sentence is verifiably true regarding the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio, let's discuss the matter at Talk:List of city nicknames in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Already done so. Thanks. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Black Loch, New Cumnock

The DYK project (nominate) 13:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Creoch Loch

The DYK project (nominate) 13:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Loch o' th' Lowes, New Cumnock

The DYK project (nominate) 13:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi, I'm with the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. I've been working on the Olympic marmot as part of a project, and now, multiple reviewers have told me that it's ready to be reviewed for GA! I nominated it, but TCO suggests to recruit reviewers to facilitate the process, and he directed me to you and a few other users. I would like to ask if you weren't too busy, to do the GA review for the Olympic marmot. I'd really appreciate it! I'm going to ask a few of the other names he gave me about this too, and whoever has the time to get to it first can review it. Thanks! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

FYI

Although you are incidental here, and may not have even seen the posts, I'm required to notify: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Preferred walking speed

I think your proposed ALT is fine. If that's the only thing holding the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Preferred walking speed back, we should pass it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Also, GRB 101225A needs a ref directly after the 10,000 mark; I don't have access to the source used at the end of the paragraph so I'm not comfortable doing it myself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for the suggestions on John Crockett! It went to the front page yesterday. --AW (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ecobank Nigeria

The DYK project (nominate) 23:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gregory Rift

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 1931 Oaxaca earthquake

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Bull's Ferry

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

oops

[3] Thanks. They do look alike to someone without enough caffeine. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the problem... --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

just passing through ...

... and wanted to note that I like your style. :) — Ched :  ?  16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Asking about how to detect close paraphrasing

Hi,

I failed to detect the close paraphrasing in Harry Toulmin (Unitarian minister), even though I employed all the methods suggested in the various "help" pages, "essays" and "dispatches". Would you be willing to share your method?

Best wishes,

MathewTownsend (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Surgeons and laryngologists

Thanks for this change. That improves the hook. What happened there is that laryngology is a surgical speciality, but he did basic research in comparative anatomy (dissecting across a wide range of animals, hence the structure and evolution bit), which is not what most surgeons chose to do. The work was more one of anatomy, physiology and zoology (in the tradition of Darwin and Hunter). Anyway, the important bit is the contrast between surgeon and the basic research, which now clearer in the hook thanks to that change you made. Trying to say more might end up being misleading, so I'm happy for that to be the hook and let those that chose to read the article find out what he did. Carcharoth (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Olympic marmot

Hi, you took on the Olympic marmot GA review on December 31st and you haven't reviewed anything yet. I'm doing this article as a project for my AP Biology course and our deadline is this week. I'd really appreciate it if you could finish the review, or if you're too busy, pass it on to another reviewer who has more time (if possible). Thank you! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Still time to modify a DYK hook?

Hi, I see that you altered the hook slightly in shifting the DYK for Uncle Henry's Playhouse to prep 4. I think that some mention of the earlier games in the series would make the hook more interesting, though, since most people are unlikely to know what series the game belongs to. It's a very rare game due to its low distribution figures and its name makes it sound like a game for infants rather than the horror-themed puzzle games that preceded it in the series. So readers may not realize that the game was part of the same series without explicit mention. The earlier games in the series were blockbuster best-sellers that were very popular in the 1990s and mentioning them in the hook will likely grab fans of those games, many of whom will never have heard of this third member of the series.

What would you think of something like this:

• ... that despite the commercial successes of earlier games in the The 7th Guest series, Uncle Henry's Playhouse sold only 176 copies worldwide?

I'm unfamiliar with DYK's procedures, so if it's too late to make a change at this point, or if it seems like this isn't a good idea then no problem. Either way, thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sal Sunseri

Would you mind locking this article? U.T. fans are vandalizing it. Bms4880 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

US populous cities notes

I would like the notes section on the List of United States cities by population page to be cleaned up a bit. I don't understand why we need note (e) and note (f)...they're the same thing (also, letter (a) under note (f) doesn't even have a working link). We should just keep all of those independent cities as one note instead of dividing them into two (also, preferably use 'except for' instead of 'excepting' when discussing the Arlington, VA situation). The second note would be getting rid of note (h) and including in as part of note (g) since it simply describes Jacksonville, FL's consolidated status in the same way as Indianapolis, Louisville, etc. Also...it'd probably be a good idea to make sure the population figures for the balances are correct (I don't know if they are or not...I had checked once a few months ago and they weren't). But seeing as to how I really am not too privy on the syntax of notation on Wikipedia, and seeing that you had semi-protected the page, I was wondering if you could please make the changes to the notes so they're more organized. In the meantime, I am going to begin writing HTML on my computer for replacing the 'city area' and 'density' columns with '2000 population' and 'growth percent' columns (since the article is specifically about populated cities, I figure that having columns showing a change in population growth would be more pertinent than showing what the densities are since population densities are not necessarily indicative of a city's size). Thank you so much and just write me back if you have any questions or suggestions. I will also post this on the main talk page for that article. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Olympic marmot

Hi! I just wanted to drop by to let you know that I haven't forgotten about the GA review for the Olympic marmot. I do plan on addressing the rest of what you've left, I've just had a really busy week with final exams for the semester and other school projects and such. If I don't finish it tomorrow, it should be done by Tuesday night. I'm sorry it's taken me so long! I really do appreciate you reviewing it. Regards, Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I'll be watching for your next contributions. --Orlady (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright! I think I'm done. Feel free to check it out :) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Phew! With Wikipedia going dark in 15 minutes, I fear there isn't enough time. But I guess I will save a copy of the page and review it... --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxohalide

I take exception to your statement "when it shows so little regard for WP:V." 23 references - little regard?. Please look at my user page and you'll see how many articles that I have written have been accepted for DYK.

On the question of defining the term oxohalide, it appears (pardon me if I'm wrong) that you know no chemistry. The names of chemical compounds are governed by IUPAC Chemical nomenclature rules. In this case oxo means "contains an oxygen atom" and halide means "contains a halogen atom (hal) in a negative oxidation state (ide)". Therefore the name itself is a definition of a class of compounds.

So cite IUPAC. The citations for the lead sentence of Oxocarbon are a fine example. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the equation

[Cr₂O₇]²⁻ + 4Cl⁻ + 6H⁺ → 2CrO₂Cl₂ + 3H₂O

should contain chemical compounds is wrong because any chloride salt (NaCl, KCl..) or dichromate salt (Na₂Cr₂O₇, K₂Cr₂O₇) would do equally well. Sulphuric acid is not included as such because it is in vast excess. The equation expresses the stoichiometry of the reaction, so it is right not to include things that do not take part in the chemical reaction. I can see that the layman might be confused by this, but such confusion can occur with any technical subject matter.

So in place of "This is illustrated by the reaction of a mixture of a chromate or dichromate salt and potassium chloride with concentrated sulfuric acid," why not write "This is illustrated by the reaction of a mixture of a chromate or dichromate salt and a chloride salt with a strong acid"? --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

a)The original sentence reflected the cited source. The reaction is fun to demonstrate to students, so the recipe is relevant. b) It has to be concentrated sulphuric acid (normally 98%) because otherwise the product would be destroyed (hydrolyzed) by water in the acid. It seemed right in the context not to include this detail. Another detail that I left out is that the reaction cab been used as the basis for a test for the presence of chloride in a mixture. There's only so much detail that one can include.

It's your article, not mine. If it's important that the reaction include concentrated sulfuric acid and KCl, then show the whole reaction. --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, in common parlance "strong acid" means concentrated, corrosive etc. but in chemistry it means another thing , namely fully dissociated. Another instance illustrating the difficulty of conveying technical material to the layman. Petergans (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that "strong acid" is not the same thing as "concentrated acid," and I believe that it is appropriate to call H₂SO₄ a strong acid. And I don't know who advised you that calling a person an ignoramus is a good way of winning a debate, but that wasn't good advice. --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sulphuric acid is a "strong acid", but not in this context. The dissociation reaction

H₂SO₄ + H₂O ⇌ HSO₄^- + H₃O⁺

is essentially complete in dilute aqueous solution, so the term "strong" is applicable in that context. In 98% sulphuric acid, however, there is not enough water to allow this reaction to go to completion. Details of the dissociation reactions in concentrated sulphuric acid are in Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8. and they are quite different from the reactions in aqueous solution.

I certainly did not mean to imply that you are an ignoramus, and apologise if I gave that impression. It seemed to me, as one with 40+ years experiance of teaching chemistry, that you were out of your depth on the technicalities of this subject matter, and the paragraph above illustrates this to me. The fundamental problem is that in chemistry we use a specialized language which can be misunderstood by the non-specialist. In WP this is an issue because of the wide range of readership.

It's an old story, raised back in the 1959 by C.P. Snow in The Two Cultures. It becomes a significant problem in WP when, as in this case, a non-specialist "reviews" specialist material. We had a huge row of this nature when we tried (and failed) to get acid dissociation constant accepted as a today's featured article.

The scientific literature is structured in a different way to other literatures. There are primary publications for research results, secondary publications which review research papers and tertiary publications like text books which are mostly based on review articles and previous text-books. Stuff that gets into text books is common knowledge as it appears in many of them. We've (i.e. not just me) had this discussion about common knowledge over and over again as it appears to conflict with the WP requirement for verification. There's a lengthy discussion of this in relation to chemistry somewhere in WP, but I've forgotten where it is.

Perhaps in the light of these observations you might withdraw your objection in DYK? Petergans (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the article Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines I couldn't remember. I believe that its guideleines have been followed. Petergans (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion belongs at DYK. I'm copying it there. Let's continue the discussion there. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stuart Robinson School

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Olympic marmot

Thank you for the level of scrutiny regarding interpretation of references. The students often cherry pick information and then in an effort to avoid plagiarism modify the script at the expense of accuracy of content. My student is learning an excellent lesson on the importance of "understanding" the content that is being added and the importance of being an "expert" on the subject. Verifying content as it relates to the citation is extremely time consuming. Your willingness to sacrifice this time is deeply appreciated. Regards (AP Biology Teacher) --JimmyButler (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we wait forever?

?. A month with no action is more than enough time. We can't wait forever. PumpkinSky talk 03:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are rejecting a DYK nomination because DYK reviewers have not bothered to finish the review?!? It took almost 2 weeks for a reviewer to tackle it in the first place. That reviewer passed it on most aspects, but expressed some uncertainty about whether some sources were appropriate in the context of wrestling. Another review commented ambiguously some time thereafter. It is waiting for some kind person who knows about wrestling to finish the review. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So if it sits there for a year you'd leave it on T:TDYK? Just where would you draw the line? To me one month with no activity is plenty of time. If there's so little interest in it from reviewers and the nominator, do we really want it on the main page? PumpkinSky talk 03:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(stalking:) how about a month from the beginning of the first review? (speaking as one who also offers topics that are not to everybody's liking/expertise:) sometimes it takes patience, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The was from Dec 10, first review Dec 23--a month from that is tomorrow. I am sure we all agree some noms take longer and also that they can't sit in T:TDYK indefinitely. So the question is where to draw the line.PumpkinSky talk 12:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK volunteers reject DYKs that have identified problems and have not received attention from the creator or nominator over an extended period. I have never seen a nomination rejected due to lack of attention from DYK volunteers, regardless of timing. This one actually has been reviewed somewhat positively by two volunteers; it's just that neither one of them made a firm decision that it was OK. --Orlady (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, it has been reviewed and left hanging, so IMHO it should go away now. I'll take your lack of response to a firm deadline to mean you're undecided on that. PumpkinSky talk 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It was reviewed and left waiting for an additional reviewer. Why don't you review it, instead of saying "no reviewers have paid attention to this lately, so it should be rejected"? --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you review it since you're the one that doesn't want it killed? Or why don't you ping the two reviewers who left it in a lurch? For me, the topic just doesn't interest me. PumpkinSky talk 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Madeline Rogero

Left you a note. Isn't it time for Template:Knoxville?

• Oops, I saw I forgot to sign that. My apologies. Anyway, I started a rename conversation at Template talk:Knoxneighborhoods. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Firm

You for got to add a DYKmake template so I get credited.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

How is this manual credit thing going to work?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John Henry Devereux

Could you take a look at the paraphrasing in the nominated article? It looks okay now, but as I missed some the first time I don't feel comfortable giving it a tick. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Another "university" question, since you're my go-to person on this topic

How about taking a peek at EUCLID (Pôle Universitaire Euclide, Euclid University)? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (was back in Tennessee for three days, but only for Chattacon)

Another candidate for the list?

See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Status of Euclid university. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

You know what for, plus for your voice of reason in the midst of gratuitous noise. Marrante (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Category Rename

You proposed Category:Church buildings in the United States by state to Category:Churches in the United States by state

I commented Because "church" can mean both the congregation and the building it occupies, many local church articles cover both the congregation and its building; some are only about the congregation and some are only about the building. is quite right, but there are church buildings which have become mosques or office buildings. I support the change, but ask that somehow the congregation/parish/denomination vs. the building (currently or formerly a "church") distinction be recognized and handled.

How can the needed distinctions be handled? --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of repurposing the entire "churches" hierarchy to become a "church buildings" tree, create "church buildings" categories -- and use the many "church buildings" categories that currently exist (including "former church buildings" categories that exist for churches that became something else) -- for those articles that are strictly about buildings. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! DThomsen8, please read the sub section An example of how it is, and how this should be for an example of that. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is that subsection? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22#An_example_of_how_it_is.2C_and_how_this_should_be... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Olympic marmot GA review

Hi! I wrote most of the Olympic marmot article and put it up for GA review, which you started to do. I addressed all your concerns but then you never came back to it after dropping in and out and adding more plus marks on the rubric. The problems have been fixed since January 17th, so I was wondering if you could please come and tell me if there's anything else I need to do to finish the review and get it to GA. I know with the whole SOPA controversy, everything on Wikipedia got a little bit hectic so I understand if you've been too busy! Thanks, Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)