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)

hey, truce please

Hey, what's going on? It looks like you are visiting all of my recent edits, second-guessing me with reverts and moves. It's perfectly fine for you to browse my contribution history, and to make edits, but it seems you are going out of your way to make reverts and moves that directly undo my work, when you could choose other ways to get your points across.

By the way, it's often helpful to use the wp:Requested move service. This is useful whenever there is likely to be controversy about a move you are interested in making, or if you don't like a move that someone else just made. I did not expect any controversy to my renaming The Hermitage (Tennessee), so did not list it there or discuss at the talk page, but your revert with emphatic edit label indicates there is some controversy, apparently, so I will put it up at Requested moves now (with notification to wt:NRHP and the Tennessee wikiproject).

I'll also try using the Requested move service about the William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures rename, too. I am imagining you visited that article when noticing that I had created an Aiken House disambiguation page earlier. I don't know if you knew it, but the William Aiken House article is one that I created, too. Your rename here is consistent with the view you expressed at wt:NRHP about House at 3 Crown Street etc. I am sure there are a bunch more NHL names you could take exception to as well along the same lines, but I hope that we could discuss general principle first. doncram (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, two unexpected moves appeared on my watchlist in rather close succession, both with your name on them.
First was the move of List of National Register of Historic Places entries to United States National Register of Historic Places listings. I was surprised to see that, as I hadn't noticed your proposal on that talk page, and I posted messages on that article's talk page and on the NRHP wikiproject talk page.
The Hermitage (Tennessee) was on my watchlist after an edit I made there last month; I had also edited the disambiguation page Hermitage at that time. When I saw that change, my reaction was "WTF? What ambiguity led to that rename?" and I looked at your contribution history to try to figure out what had led you to decide the name was ambiguous. I couldn't see any justification for your move so I boldly moved it back. (Also, I restored some text that you had moved out of the article. I can see why you moved it out, and it belongs in the other article you moved it to. However, the fact that a lot of other stuff in the Nashville area is named for The Hermitage is important information to include in the article about The Hermitage, so I restored it there, with a new subheading.)
Yes, while looking at your contributions I did notice the Aiken House page and looked at it out of random curiosity. I noticed William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures and reacted that the name was a mistake by someone unfamiliar with WP:MOS, so I renamed it as a maintenance measure. I did not look at the article history and I am sorry to hear that my action offended you, but it truly looked to me like a clear violation of the style guidelines.
As for WP:Requested move, that noticeboard is for moves that require administrator intervention (not the case here); it is not the place to discuss proposed moves. Even when a request is posted on that noticeboard, discussion is supposed to occur on a talk page appropriate to the affected article or articles. --Orlady (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No offense taken about anything. Your adding a diferent subheader about the other usages of "Hermitage" helps a lot, reframing and providing justification to keep that text in, otherwise it looked unrelated and perhaps like advertising for the hotel. My move edit label could have been better, but the ambiguity I saw was that there are 3 Hermitages in Tennessee, and I also noticed that the parenthetical "(Tennessee)" is non-standard in NRHP site names, which instead usually have (City, State). I thought "(Andrew Jackson home)" would be clear, but it's fine to discuss alternatives. About using Requested moves, well i have now posted these two and given notice at wt:NRHP and the state pages. I think it is fine to ask for additional input. In my past experience, the extra input obtainable from posting at Requested moves is often helpful. My past experience with Requested moves is not that long. I was introduced to it by Travellingcari who diplomatically used it to get help on a content disagreement we were engaged in; it was very helpful that time, anyhow.

About your not noticing the rename proposal for the "List of Register Entries" page, that's not surprising as there have been lots of edits implementing just one state rename at a time, which was obscuring real discussion. Ironical that i tried to stop those multiple small edits by doing it all at once, only to be reverted.... Oh well.  :) doncram (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

About "premature" and other judgments. I'm taking the time to try to express something here, because we have overlapping interests and considerable interaction, which is fine, but I am having trouble sometimes with how you say some things. In particular, I hope you won't mind me commenting here, by way of giving feedback, that i experienced as a bit judgmental your use of "premature" as an adjective describing an edit of mine at what is now United States National Register of Historic Places listings. You used that term in an edit label of your edit directly reverting mine, and you later wrote it into the Talk page discussion. About your reverting my particular edit, as i stated on the talk page i don't care, and I don't take offense that you prefer to implement the big sequence of name-change edits in a different sequence than i would have done. In general, I don't think anyone likes to be directly reverted, but i don't care in that case, especially as it will all be done with soon and pretty much the changes i put in will get put in by someone else. What I am trying to say here is that it was a personal opinion of yours that my edit was not appropriate ("premature"), but you stated it as if it is fact. Of course you knew that i knew that my edit put many state links into red-link status, but then it is a matter of personal opinion whether that is bad in some sense, presumably for serving current readers (which I don't perceive to be present in large numbers, so I don't weigh that factor so much, relative to efficiency in developing towards a better encyclopedia). I expect you didn't mean it to sound as if you are in charge and dispensing final judgments, but it could be interpreted that way. Or, perhaps it comes across to others as being deliberately a bit rude, for emphatic effect. I guess I would prefer if you would have self-identified your opinion as your opinion, and then perhaps explained why you thought it was so important that you felt it necessary to directly revert my edit. Just self-qualifying your statement as an opinion, e.g. "I think doncram's edit was premature" would be politer, i think. Again, I don't mind about the particular instance, and I think I am getting more used to how you talk so I will misinterpret what you say less often, anyhow. But in some other contexts, it will matter to me more, how you say what you mean, and I just want to ask you to give some attention to this. No apologies asked for or expected, no response necessary, thanks for listening. I will watch here if you do respond though. Thanks! :) doncram (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you have felt better about my comments if I had said the change was "done too soon"? That's what "premature" meant.

Regarding why I thought that change was done too soon: I don't particularly like to play wikilawyer, but my approach was fully consistent with a WP style guideline, namely Wikipedia:Red link. (Read it, if you are not familiar with it already.) A red link in a live article tells the user (and yes, there are users out there) that no article exists about the linked topic. Blue links should not be deliberately converted to red links because that diminishes the quality and usefulness of the encyclopedia. 'Nuf said.

As of now, I have personally renamed 30 state- and territory-specific NRHP list articles (as well as a bunch of substate-level NRHP list articles) and I have created state index pages for several states where someone had reasoned that it would be a good idea to redirect the state list to one of the substate lists. There are still two more states needing index pages, so we are now very close to being able to implement your wholesale changes to the U.S. list page without creating any red links. --Orlady (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Stroke Belt

On 8 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stroke Belt, 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.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Randolph, Tennessee

Hey, how is it going? I am kind of stuck with a question about the population of a small place, and as I know that you deal with unincorporated small places sometimes I thought to drop you a line. I started that article about Randolph, Tennessee recently and I am so far pretty amazed that there is a lot of documented historical information to find about that place. Funny, if enough time passes, even about the smallest places there is something to say. Well, what I could not find out about is any recent population. As a matter of fact, I have a referenced population for 1820 (54), shortly before foundation of the town. And I have one good enough estimate for 1834 (1,000). In 1861 they had 5,000 soldiers there, but that does not really count as population, does it? Today it might be in the few hundreds, not much more. It looks like any population more recent than 1834 would be of great help here already.

I tried to find out about the voting precincts, but Randolph is included in the same voting precinct (14 S.W. Tipton) with a few other, larger communities. So you can't really start from there. [Tipton Cty Voting Precincts]. Maybe you have more material available on the topic. Thanks in advance! doxTxob \ ^talk 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chicago Bulls seasons

Could you review the above FLC? Look like your comments have been addressed. Thanks

Re: Technical question

Yep, all those IPs are blocked under 75.125.163.128/27 and 75.125.166.0/27. After seeing them in the Jvolkblum case, I did a whois search and found they were anonymizers from a company called My Privacy Tools. I'm not sure if the CUs were aware of that, but those IPs should've been blocked. That's one less resource for a banned user. Spellcast (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock?

Hey there. Could you take a look at this thread if you get the chance? I suspect it's a sock of the fellow you've been dealing with, but don't know enough of the MO to know if this is a regular part of his activities. Might be worth another checkuser, if that's the case... Tony Fox (arf!) 05:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the previous edit by a new user, who removed this entry verify Tony Fox suspicion :( Maniadis (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasel Safwan

FYI, a comment was added by a new editor to this year-old RfA. I don't know if there is enough new stuff to justify a new article or not. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

College Square Mall

I don't think that redirecting to the town would be a good idea since there's another mall with the same name in Iowa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiding images from view

Could you please justify your actions?

Jcwf (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I really admire you for the care you take to prevent at all cost that visual and textual information might be combined. Obviously that must be a great concern of you. I take it you only have a radio and silent movies?

Jcwf (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Overton's Rest and Randolph

Thanks for your input on the Overton article, on Travellers Rest and the naming controversy. Overton was a missing link in the Randolph article and his home was missing in the article about him, both articles with a good potential for expansion.

As you are involved in small town articles yourself, maybe you can read through and copy edit the Randolph article when time allows. What I have found about the place is accumulated in the article and the sources seem to be sufficient. Articles are never complete, of course, this one is in a pre-finished stable state, ready for another expert to look over.

Thanks a lot. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrative Detention DYK

I've found an updated ref - from the New York Times, from 2008, which gives the number as 31,000 on any given day. This reference is also used in the Illegal immigration to the United States article. I've updated both the hook and the article accordingly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Census estimates

I have no problem with using good estimates for the population (see what I did in this edit to Hercules, California); it's just that most places that I've seen that rely on sourced Census Bureau estimates (including most places in Arizona, such as Thatcher) don't include the 2000 population in the intro. Overall, I don't see any significant problem with including or not including the 2000 population in the intro, although I think it does go better, both because it's an actual count and because it can provide a short-term view of growth or decline. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for cemesto

On 2 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article cemesto, 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.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack Stack article

You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Stack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.

To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mack Flenniken who had a professional career with the New York Giants and Chicago Cardinals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WOOPS Typo--it is Jack Sack not Jack Stack. Apologies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project (DMOZ) Links

The DMOZ search template (Dmoz2) is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. I'm sending you this notice because of your previous participation in the TfD discussion for the DMOZ category template. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Thank you. Qazin (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

List of bow tie wearers has been brought back to AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry. My bad. I had noticed that no one involved with editing the article or involved in previous AfD's had been notified, and thought to rectify that oversight. However, I also just realized that you had already commented, so a notice is unneccessary. WIth respects to the nom, but it feels somehow wrong to renominate so soon after a resounding keep, and to not inform interested editors that their earlier views are being disregarded. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory

Please note that I have asked User:Schuminweb why he deleted the Proffitt's list without notification or discussion. He did this to other lists of former stores I worked on for AM&A's and Franklin Simon & Co. Please join the discussion.--Pubdog (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and revived this discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Ted--Pubdog (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lost in a blockquote

Thanks for your edit on List of bow tie wearers, with the edit window open I didn't even realize it was a quote! I don't know how fond I am of the amount of quoting in the list, though. Overall it has a very un-list-like quality; the volume of prose and quantity of quotes confuse the issue quixotically.--otherlleft (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		You grabbed the ball on List of city nicknames in the United States after I had made a start on sourcing while the article was at AfD. You have diligently added sources and kept this article -- a frequent target of vandalism -- in line, making constant additions and improvements. This is just one of many articles where I have seen your patience and persistence in improving articles by the addition of reliable and verifiable sources. This honor is richly deserved. Congratulations! Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I constantly see your name editing, sourcing, reverting and improving a number of articles we share in common, and I know there are many more that you focus your attention on. Having added a few hundred sources to List of city nicknames in the United States (and its state subarticles), I know how hard it is to keep in line and you've done a fantastic job in an article that has to be one of Wikipedia's greatest vandalism magnets. Keep it up! Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep me posted....

Please let me know as soon as "List of bow tie wearers" goes to DRV, as it feels like the closing Admin completely ignored consensus. Kinda defeats the purpose of the AfD process. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I was aghast at the Admin for closing and deleting against consensus. Yikes! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

List of notable people who wore the bowler hat

I distinctly remember that I changed the references template to "improve" because I saw a single reference when I did so. However, the history does not bear me out. Perhaps I should take a page from J.delanoy (talk · contribs) and avoid trying to improve articles . . . at least after 10PM.--otherlleft (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Orlady, Thanks for restoring the archived sites on the Barber-Scotia College page - I usually just remove bad links, but you were smart to investigate further. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Your edits to the article are right on target. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query

Hey, just so you know, you tagged US Post Office-Mount Vernon for speedy deletion under G5. However, as far as I can tell, User:Treyert hasn't been banned from editing. If I have made a mistake with my declining the speedy, please let me know. Thanks. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

heh. wow do I feel dumb. I didn't even think of checking at checkuser.... I deleted the article, but I'm not too familiar with how checkuser cases work so I think I'll wait for someone else who knows the procedure to do that part. Thanks for the clarification and your hard work on teh wiki! Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Oak Ridge Boys albums

Yes, it's required to use "The" in the category if the parent article uses "the". According to several sources, the group's official name is "The Oak Ridge Boys", and note that we have Category:The Oak Ridge Boys songs and Category:The Oak Ridge Boys members, so it would only make sense to have the albums category match too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairfax University

Hello Orlady and thanks for contacting me,

I am in no way affiliated with Fairfax University. I was a student of that institution until 2004 and I have first-hand knowledge since I was at a graduation ceremony and met the people I refer to, etc. I have a brochure produced by the Univ which I can quote, although there is nothing on the web since their page is down and they tried their best to remove their tracks.

The entry as it stood was simply inaccurate (Fairfax University was a legally established institution for some time, and not a 'diploma mill' until it lost its licence) and I saw it as my duty to correct it. I am being as objective as I can, and I certainly have no wish to promote (or for that matter deride) that institution, but just to make a truthful entry.

Please do feel free to contact me and let me know if there is anything I can do to make myself more helpful. If you provide an email, I will be more than happy to forward you some University emails and documents to prove the above.

I have added some references as you requested. I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Oscar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Dell (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference found

Dear Orlady,

I have further added an important reference source, the Fairfax University Prospectus of 1995, which confirms that Alan M Jones was the president (shows his picture on page 1), that the University office was in Baton Rouge Louisiana and that the institution was established in 1986. I have also found that in the 2000 Degree Ceremony PDF provided in their discontinued website Lord Perry of Walton is referred to as the University new chancellor just as I claimed (I was actually there). See http://web.archive.org/web/20060517093256/www.fairfaxu.edu/ffu/downloads/Winter2000.pdf

If you would be so kind as to correct the referencing in the edit that would be most helpful.

Best regards,

Oscar Dell (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2008, GMT

DYK for Nameless, Tennessee

On 29 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nameless, Tennessee, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Forage fish

You recently marked Forage fish, a DYK nomination, with a "No". Would you please re-examine this. This article has been a lot of work. Let me explain how this mess up occurred.

When I put the article up for DYK, I looked around for a hook, and decided, unwisely as it turned out, to use some "late breaking research" as the hook. This research is under the supervision of Daniel Pauly, who is the pre-eminent fisheries scientist of our times. Just prior to publication, a "Preview", which is like a press release, was sent to news organisations. News Previews like these are not made available online. This means you can only find out what is going on via secondary news sources. So I grabbed the first two that came up on google that had enough information, without worrying who they were, because they were only temporary. So it turned out that I had grabbed spacedaily.com and treehugger.com. So I got the gist of it, and then, calamity, forgot to copyedit it. I know that's inexcusable. My focus was on the rest of the article. I was regarding this stuff as temporary until the real paper was available, and because the real source was impeccable, I guess I got a bit lazy while waiting for the real thing. Then I stupidly choose this stuff for the hook! Anyway, the real article is now available—it cost $20 :(

I have copyedited the offending text, replaced the shonky sources with the real source, and included a couple of less objectionable secondary sources if you don't want to spend $20, and exhaustively checked the rest of the article in case there were any remaining copy violations. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have truncated the section on environmental concerns that you seem to object to, in the light of the the source document that is now available, and removed any possible sources of POV that I can conceive of. --Geronimo20 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've found it very difficult trying to get the real juice on what is going down here. I am committed to writing fishery articles which get to what is really going on. But no one seems interested in Wikipedia, so even though we are at loggerheads here, I actually appreciate your involvement and keeping me to the straight and narrow. So why not bury the hatchet (it seems to me you do have a hatchet out) and let's just cooperate over the remaining time and get this out as a DYK. I'm willing to do whatever it takes. I still think the original hook is reasonable. If you can add a decent reference or two, let's make it a joint DYK. But I have only 24 hours, after which I will in the back blocks without any access to a computer for several days. --Geronimo20 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for Buckskin Joe, Colorado

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For kindly doing what was necessary (without any prodding) to get Buckskin Joe, Colorado to DYK status. Without your edits, the Wikipedia community would not have learned about this interesting piece of americana history. Truthanado (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Patuxet

On 2 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patuxet, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up...

This is my first time on a talk page - so you'll have to excuse any errors! But, I believe this is the part where I am supposed to write a thank you to Orlady for nominating the Patuxet article that I input this past week. So... thank you!!! Rawhyd (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Rawhyd

Well, thanks again for taking an interest in my interests! I do hope to provide some more DYK worthy stuff in the future (although that, of course, is not my main purpose)!  ;^) I appreciate your being there to give me a little push - and hope to pay it forward (or back to you) in the near future. Cheers! Rawhyd (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Rawhyd

Promoting DYK nom for Shigeko Higashikuni

Hi, thank you for all the work you've done at DYK lately, it's been really excellent and you've been a big help in keeping on top of all the noms. That being said, I just wanted to point out that in this edit you appear to have promoted an article that was never verified by another reviewer (I didn't notice it until now when it came to the front page; when I stopped noticing that nomination in the list I had just assumed it was deleted and I didn't check the history or the queues). In this case it's not a huge deal because the nominator did add another source and the information is controversial, but I am still dissatisfied with the use of a geocities source in the article and if I had seen the nominator's comment before the article was promoted I would have objected until the geocities source had been removed (I never noticed the nominator's comment, though, because the nomination was promoted just a few edits after the nominator commented saying that he had added sources). Again, this is not a really big deal since it's not a terrible article, and this edit was probably just an accident; it's just a minor quibble, but I just wanted to let you know for future reference.

Thanks again for all your help at DYK; keep up the good work. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there will be any problems because, as you said, the hook fact is pretty clear-cut and easily verifiable in a number of sources. I was mainly just unhappy about the inclusion of a geocities source at all, but since the source is only cited twice in the article and it's not the only source then it isn't a major problem. With issues like that, even if the issue isn't serious enough to disqualify a hook I still like to insist on cleaning them up before I officially pass it (which is why I have been criticized by some DYK nominators for being a "perfectionist"), but in this case it wasn't a huge issue to begin with, so letting it through probably won't cause any problems. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

upright

I saw the upright parameter at Midnight Madness (basketball). What does it mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AIU's controversy section

Could you take a look at CEC's proposal to replace the current controversy section in American InterContinental University? I guess I have a personal gut reaction against allowing a company to completely rewrite their own controversy section. The current version is better than the original proposal; I don't see anything blatantly NPOV, just general positive spin. I'm uncomfortable being the only person reviewing it though, and would really appreciate a second opinion if you have a chance to look it over. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK

Oh, I didn't know non-sysops could do that. Main Page/Tomorrow seems to be protected; is there a different place I should be going? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had always noticed people being aware of how much space the hooks took up, but I never knew how they did it. Thanks for the pointers, and sorry about messing up the last Next. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for your comment on my DYK nomination on OSC. I have posted a response at the DYK template talk. --Soman (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I posted a response regarding on T:DYK talk, regarding Gangadhar Appa Burande. --Soman (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Irving P. Krick

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irving P. Krick, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Barony of Ladyland

Hi. On DYK, you picked up the Barony of Ladyland entry in the original version, even though this contained a slur: it was this edit of yours. If you scroll do the bottom of the text you removed in that edit, you will notice that me and another editor were discussing this aspect and had proposed an alternative hook. It was since modified to exclude the slur, after I posted the matter on WP:ERRORS. They told me that I should ask you how this came about. I presume your original edit was some sort of error, and that they, like me, want to avoid such errors in the future. Please pay more attention to the comments and what they say before selecting the hook updates. Thanks. Dahn (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Orlady, I was about to mention the same thing... also, a couple days ago it looks like you promoted another unverified hook (diff). (Perhaps to my discredit, I didn't say anything about that one when I first noticed it, since it was my own hook and I of course believed there was nothing wrong with it.) I'm not sure if you were really stuck looking for a hook of a certain length/topic and had no choice but to take unverified ones like this, or if it was just an accident in editing, but since this isn't this first time, and since at least one user seems to have been a bit offended by what happens (because he felt his comments were being ignored) I figured I should mention it again. I respect your judgment as a reviewer and I know you have a lot of experience, I'm just not sure what's been going on with these.

I have also left a message with Dahn about striking out bad hooks...I know it's not an official policy, but it's what I usually do because it helps me keep track of which ones have been rejected and stuff (since when I have the edit window open and am hurrying to populate Next before I get into an edit conflict, it's easy to miss stuff). Maybe it would be worthwhile to try to make it a standard for people to do that, or to mark bad hooks with or something.

Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was aiming for the alternate hook, but inadvertently copied the original hook, and did not notice my error. I have responded to this on the WP:ERRORS page, as follows:

My heartfelt apologies. My "choice" of the original hook was a dumb mistake.
I believe there have been multiple instances, including this one, in which the otherwise wonderful new hook-suggestion template (in which the original hook is beautifully highlighted on the edit page -- sending a subliminal "pick me" message to the picker who is aiming for a different hook, while alternative hooks are typically buried inside blocks of text) has contributed to the inadvertent selection of an original proposed hook that was rejected instead of an alternative hook. In other cases, the error was caught (either by the original "selector" or another contributor) before the hook made it to the main page, so this one is unfortunate. This suggests a subject for the DYK talk page: how to tweak the format of DYK suggestion and discussions to reduce the incidence of errors? --Orlady (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured it must have been some technical flaw (I never really liked the new template thing we do, but that's another matter); the combination of that restrictive template and being tired (which has happened to all of us) was "deadly" in this case. Thank you for looking into it, and I do hope it will lead to some streamlining, template or no template. Best, Dahn (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's a good point; I'm pretty sure I have actually done the same thing a couple times in cases where an ALT hook was verified and the original hook was rejected. It's true that the template makes the original hook very prominent, which is why I like to prominently reject it by striking it out. When the hook was still in development How do you turn this on and Suntag and I played with the idea of having five ALT hook parameters in the template so that when a user suggested an ALT he would add it to the template and all the hooks would be grouped at the top, above the discussion; we ultimately didn't do it because it seemed weird to have all the hooks at the top like that, separated from the discussion context in which they were originally raised. But given this problem, the idea may be worth revisiting at WT:DYK (we only discussed it at the {{DYKsuggestion}}, so there weren't as many people chiming in). And, of course, I still think getting people to be more consistent with striking out or ing bad original hooks will also help. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As for bǎ construction, I reviewed that one before I picked it and made note of my conclusions in the edit summary on the next update page. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought. What if I added a parameter |verified hook= to the template, and in cases where there are multiple hooks and only one is selected then the verifying reviewer could manually add that parameter and the one hook that should be taken? Of course, it would contribute to the growing "parameter creep" in that template that I've already been concerned about (I'm thinking of getting rid of |altusername= and |movedtomainspace=, for example), but it might make things clearer in these multi-hook cases. Of course, sometimes people verify saying something like "ALT2 and ALT3 are both fine with me," so this wouldn't help for cases like that, but oh well. The only other problem I can think of is that people might abuse it (ie, in a situation where there are 3 hooks, maybe most people in the discussion think 2 and 3 are fine, but the person doing the actual verifying specifies 2 as the only good one even though other reviewers thought 2 was also fine), but that's something that happens anyway, if it can even be called a "problem," so I don't think having it in the template would make things any worse.

Do you have any thoughts on this? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 10:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK Fleet Foxes

Cheers for re-adding the DYK. You know I liked to so much I went and nommed it twice! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Edit links are misfiring"

In this edit summary... were you referring to when you click the edit link for one section and it ends up editing the section above or below? That happens to me pretty frequently and I assume it's just from someone adding or removing a section in between the time you load the page and the time you click "edit" (since section editing works by number, if you click a link that wants to edit "section=16" but someone has added a section above it then "section=16" will have changed)...but I remember being confused a few times when we first switched over to this system, and I thought about opening a discussion about that issue and ways to warn non-regulars so that they don't get frustrated ("Someone left me this message saying there was a problem with my hook, and I came back to explain, and it keeps making me edit the wrong section, wtf!"). I ended up never bringing it up because I wasn't sure if it was problematic for other people, but if you've been noticing it too then maybe it's something worth looking into.

(If you were referring to something totally different in your edit summary, my apologies.) —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are referring to, this was similar, but things had gotten more messed up than that. The first, second, and third times I tried to clear that section, I got edit conflicts related to the edit where Sillyfolkboy accidentally deleted most of the page. After that, I kept getting a link to some other section, even though the page history indicated that no changes had been made to the page. I think this happens sometimes when there is a glitch in a section heading. (I've seen it on other talk pages.) --Orlady (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK'd: Jose C. Abriol

Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

flaminglawyer^cneverforget is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reply

Thank you for the clarification. I sincerely hope you wouldn't take the criticism personally; I know you've been working hard and I truly appreciate it. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Lawrence E. Glendenin

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawrence E. Glendenin, 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.

DYKBot (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Charles D. Coryell

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles D. Coryell, 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.

DYKBot (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Zoia Horn

Thanks for your help in improving the Horn article. I take no offense at the back-and-forth of the DYK process and hope you don't either. Such back-and-forth is what leads to good quality. I choose articles for nomination that I think will appeal to readers and try to create hooks that will attract eyes to the article. The efforts of DYK reviewers in carefully reviewing the hooks is critical. There have been efforts in the past to place cleverly-written hoax articles on DYK, and so your attention to detail is needed and appreciated.Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for 1933 Wisconsin milk strike

On 8 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1933 Wisconsin milk strike, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proposed Deletion of Like..._The_Beatles

Hi,

Just to let you know i have removed the prod tag from the above article. I am pretty sure that i have at least one other verifiable source, but need advice on the correct way to cite it. Thanks for pointing out the problem rather than just queuing for deletion, though :)

Gkmotorsport (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Cornish jack

On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornish jack, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Time Cover William L Clayton.jpg IFD closed

I non-administratively closed Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_16#Image:Time_Cover_William_L_Clayton.jpg because the image is no longer in use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK reply

Hi Orlady. I posted a reply to your request at Charles Willing Byrd. -- Suntag ☼ 08:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for DYK Castle Crags Wilderness

Dear Orlady, Just a quick "Thank you" for the DYK- this is my very first, so I'm excited- I was assuming my pieces were too short to qualify so I gave up that hope, until now. Again, Thank you! Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK template and dates/times

Orlady, thanks for reporting that problem. If you have a chance, could you leave a message at Template talk:DYKsuggestion explaining which parameters you used and didn't use, and [if possible] the same information for other noms that you have noticed not having dates? If we know what particular ways calling the template has caused it to mess up, it should be easier to figure out what the problem is. Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. I have responded there. I think I figured out what's causing the problem (I sure hope I did, because if I was wrong then my entire ridiculously long rant there will be totally irrelevant)—it seems to not be a problem directly with the template, but with how some nominators have been calling it. The gist of my message over there is, while that's not directly a problem with the code in the template, it's still a problem with the template and not the nominators, because it means the template's usage is unintuitive. Most of my message over there is suggestions about how we might be able to make the usage clearer. Thanks for your help, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference Correcting on Strawberry Plains, Tennessee

Thank you for correcting the reference I inserted into Strawberry Plains, Tennessee. I was about to contact you for assistance. I would appreciate any advice / information about referencing. If you can, post it on my talk page.

Thank you. TTS51207 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK reply

Hi Orlady. I posted a reply to your request at Twist lifts. -- Suntag ☼ 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Next update

Hey Orlady, it looks like you're putting together Next right now. I was wondering, if it's not too much trouble, could you fit the Rose Point, Pennsylvania hook into this one (or perhaps into Next Next)? I know there are a lot of older noms waiting to go up, but the nominator will be away for medical reasons soon and has asked if this one can go up before the 15th. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Khedive Palace

Hi. I have added the references in Khedive Palace required for DYK nomination. Thanks so much for your attention. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your cooperation. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

About blockquotes

I know some users can quote certain things, but most of the time quotes are good, especially when they are from famous individuals. For instance, on the Samson Agonistes page, it would be better to have Milton tell us what Greek theatre means and how he is adapting to it. It is Milton. He was a linguistic genius. There may be some great writers out there, but I think it would be unfair to try and add your own version in such a situation. I've never run into the blockquote problem until now, and most of my articles include heavy, classical quoting. I work as a literary critic and scholar. I write in that style. I know when my language cannot compete to a famously phrased piece. It is also nice to put quotes from books online so that students can see the exact wording when they might not have access to it. Yeah, its a complicated issue, but that is why I feel strongly about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Ken Mink

On 16 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ken Mink, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK template

Hi, I'd just like to let you know that the template {{DYKsug}} was just updated with a new feature: now, for all DYK nominations that include only one article, it auto-generates the credit templates ({{DYKmake}} and {{DYKnom}}), which the person moving the hook to Next may simply cut and past from T:TDYK directly into next. This only happens with single-article nominations; if the nomination has more than one article, there will be a message in the template saying "Credits must be done manually by the person moving this nomination to Next" or something like that. It will probably be a few days before you start seeing the auto-generated credit templates, since the template was only just updated and only the new nominations will reflect it; the first several times you see auto-generated credit templates, you may want to double-check the nom as you are promoting it, just to make sure the credits are correct.

There have been some other minor changes—mainly, now if a DYK nominator lists himself as both "creator/expander" and "nominator," the "nominator" field ends up blank (so that what gets displayed is "Created by User, self nom" rather than "Created by User, nominated by User." Also, the fields, |collaborator=, |collaborator2=, and |collaborator3= have been replaced with the more intuitive |creator2=, |creator3=, and |creator4=.

Please let me know if you experience any problems with the new template. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Francis Frangipane

A tag has been placed on Francis Frangipane requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PamD (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

White wash

I just wanted to point out that the day after you reverted a white wash, the same editor removed the material again at Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. I restored it and merged the two sections together. Tgreach (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your work on the Errors page, Coal slurry impoundment, and the Current events main page. Thanks, rkmlai (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

George Hardy

Hello Orlady, Thank you for writing to me. I am sorry that I re-entered an edit on your post about George Hardy's life. I did this before seeing your letter to me. So when you see that again, I just want to let you know that it is perfectly fine with me if you will delete my entry. BTW George Hardy was a great labor leader, and I am so glad to have been able to read your wonderful post about him. I didn't really know George Hardy very well personally, but I did have the opportunity to meet him.

-- Walter Ballin 04:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Dos Pilas - query

Hi Orlady

A day or two ago you moved the hook for my 5x expansion of the Dos Pilas article to the next update, and from what I can see on the article talk page, Dos Pilas appeared on the Main Page on 28th December. I'm not sure who did the actual update but no acknowledgement appeared on my own talk page. Any idea how I can get this?

Thank you & best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm the DSM guy, apparently my 30 days were up. I've got an account, I just didn't realize I wasn't logged in.

Thanks for keeping the vandals at bay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NFLDolphinsGuy (talk • contribs) 06:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Kevin Laue

On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kevin Laue, 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.

Cirt (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)