User talk:Orlady/Archive 6

A question

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

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

Hi. I noticed this nomination and perhaps some preparation on your part to accept the nomination. I seldom participate in RFA discussions but do speak up in cases where i feel i have information that is important to share, as in a recent RFA for Wadester16. As a courtesy to you, I think i should inform you that if you go for RFA now I will speak up in opposition. I would be happy to discuss my reasons with you on- or off-line, and/or what might mitigate my concerns. You will do what you want, of course, but I don't want it to be a surprise to you if you go ahead and I do oppose. doncram (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I too will naturally oppose you after the extraordinary high-handed treatment you subjected me to. While you surely do some useful things around Wikipedia, you are too confrontative, and simply lack the communication skills that an administrator should possess. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Geronimo20: I didn't know you still held a grudge regarding Forage fish. I guess you feel that it was "extraordinarily high-handed" of me to put a "copy-paste" template on your article (in this diff) when there are other Wikipedians who would have requested speedy deletion as a copyvio. And I suppose it was personally offensive to you when I fixed spelling errors, removed content that was not supported by the reference cited, and did other cleanup edits on the article. And apparently you feel it was "high-handed" of me to point out that an article built from copypaste content was not ready for being featured on the main page in WP:DYK, to point out POV issues in the article, and then not to acquiesce to your requests[1] that I drop everything else in my life to rewrite your article so it would qualify for DYK. Sorry, but I happen to be more interested in ensuring quality and in following policies than in forming a fan club of other Wikipedians. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The tone of your response is precisely what I am referring to. At times, you are high-handed, excessively confrontative, you wildly exaggerate to the point of pure fantasy, and seem hell bent, relentlessly trying to damage your opponent in every way you can imagine. And opponent is the right word, since your dialogue is wholly polarised, allowing the other person no room from your side. Yes, under time pressure I forgot to copyedit the copyedit a news source had made of a late breaking news release. That was bad and dumb. So you had "got me", and I deserved to be rapped on the knuckles. But if I believed in the validity of the spin you put, even an accusation of plagiarism, I would, of course, walk away from Wikipedia and never edit again. Wikipedia will lose good editors if other editors, as savage and unreasonable as you can be, are to be made administrators. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Adw

I'm speechless. The history says that I deleted it but I couldn't even say when I've ever even been on that page, let alone had a desire to edit it. I'll do some research and see what was going on. Thanks for the notice. OlYeller^Talktome 05:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Someone had used the template to warn me about an article that was going into AfD. I had only made small changed to the article and didn't particularly care so I didn't want to clog my talk page up with the notice. I removed the notice (just the template not all the info as you can see [2]. Would removing that template from my talk page show up in the log for the template itself? I'm so confused. Please understand that my intentions were not to delete a whole template, just the text on my talk page that was created by the template. Do I not have permission to do that? I'm still newish so please help me understand if I'm doing something wrong so that I don't do it again. Thanks for your time. OlYeller^Talktome 05:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

After looking through my history some more, I must have somehow gotten to the template page itself and deleted the template there instead of on my talk page like I intended. Sorry.  :-( OlYeller^Talktome 05:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Automated spelling fixes

Please be more careful with automated spelling changes scripts. In many cases, spellings may be proper names or acceptable variations or whatnot. For instance, this book title [3] should retain its actual spelling, and not be changed to the modern prefered one. Cheers, WilyD 11:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't do automated spelling fixes, so that's an isolated event. --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, uh, my mistake about the tools, I just sort of assumed, given their widespread use and the nature of the mistake. WilyD 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I concluded that "cotemporary" was a mistake. Live and learn! --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary colleges

You seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in removing too much cruft. Please discuss major changes like that on the talk page. I'm going to re-insert the cited matters. They may not be on-line for free. Because they are cited, available for a fee, reliable, and relevant, they should go back in. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I think we need to get this RfA moving. Let me know as soon as you've been able to answer the remaining questions so that I can post it to the list. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm going to be offline from tomorrow until Sunday since I have to travel to a funeral. If you don't get a chance to finished the RfA questions before I leave, feel free to post the RfA yourself. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your nomination

Hey Orlady, your hair looks nice today! [ ;-) this joke is going to be explained further down, it is to make sure you read it all ;-) ] Sorry for disturbing your nomination page prematurely. The nomination page is linked from your talk page and it looked like the voting has already started. Especially as there were votes present already. My concern was not only the two unanswered questions in a process that looked ongoing to me, I also mentioned one single and defined issue regarding your proposed adminship, which is your way to deal with some conflicts with a few certain users which sometimes leads to user blocks, I think that is a relevant issue to raise when a new admin is appointed. We have discussed this recently about that MagdaSoandSo sockpuppet, where I could not see any destructive edits by that very user MagdaSoandSo, but that user is still blocked. Well, after that and after I saw that you were nominated, I looked through some of your old talk contributions. Congratulations to your nomination, by the way, not sure if I said that already. I think you're going to make it easily.

I just want to state here what I noticed and try to describe it without bias. Keep in mind that I did not study all the talk, so I might have missed something and might be wrong. In this case, just ignore it. (1) Those conflicts that got out of hand were all "much ado about nothing". One unfriendly word leads to the next. As mentioned at another place all that taking place in the edit summaries. Looking at your responses in these conflicts I miss the calming element in the speech. Just by using different words in the first approach or responses you could easily bring the conflict back to a matter-of-fact level and address the problem. When it becomes personal, the problem does not get solved. And sometime it does not hurt to say "sorry", either. (2) Don't take this personal, it might just be due to your personal style and the limited characters in the edit summary. You often address a criticism in the edit summary in too few words, using Wiki abbreviations. Some of the users whom you had or have conflicts with stated that they found your comments arrogant or something to that tune. Sometimes you sound like a 100 year old retired never-married history teacher (and I really hope you aren't one). What I found you could improve easily, use the talk page instead of the edit summary and start all your critical comments with a friendly sentence, the harsher the criticism is going to be the more friendly a first sentence I recommend. You could try to find something friendly in the user history or in articles the user created. Starting it positive would give the talk a whole new friendly basis on which the fact issues can be addressed effectively. You can always also add something friendly of your choice at the end, too. (3) I might be wrong here but I noticed a few gaps in the MagdaSoandSo and other users investigation. This might point to communication related to a topic but discussed in private channels. Maybe not, there might be another reason. I think an admins communication should be even more tracable than any other users. As well as myself you also have the bad habit of scattering out your talk and to answer a question raised on your talk page on the users talk page, but then, question and answer get separated and if someone wants to find out how some conflict developed, you would have real trouble to find your way from the start to the beginning. As I said, I have the same habit and everytime I see how Huntster does it ... well, that keeps the discussion together.

Hey, I hope you did not find anything of the above offensive, it would not be meant that way. And as it looks further up your talk page you will have to take some stance here anyway. Maybe you can derive some idea from the above to develop your communication skills in a positive direction. You have enough knowledge about Wikipedia and the policies and style regulations already to be a good admin. With some fine tuning in the right direction you could become a great admin even. Take care and good luck, doxTxob \ ^talk 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unincorporated area,

however, the fact that large swatchs of land are under trust makes the distinction between unincorporated status and incorporated status completely irrelevant. These lands are empty, or used solely for cattle, deer, National Parks, and *maybe* timber. It is not as if these lands have lots of people but no incorporation, which would more the model of other nations.Scientes (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A useful addition?

Just wanted to ask if you think this is a useful addition to the article or not. I was testing the new charting capabilities in Google Spreadsheet and that was the result :) Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Coloradan or Coloradoan?

The United States Government Printing Office officially says that a resident of the State of Colorado should be described as a Coloradoan. Colorado State Government says that the term Coloradoan is antiquated and that residents of the state should be described as Coloradans. --Buaidh (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking in

Hope things are OK with your family emergency. Just drop me a note when you get back. Best wishes. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your multiple speedy deletion requests

Please stop putting up New Rochelle area articles for Speedy deletion. I have removed three of your deletion notices. I will review your editing contributions to identify others you have nominated that way in order to delete those requests. The speedy deletion process is for obvious cases; I assert that all of these are not obvious cases. If you continue in this way I would have the opinion that you are violating wikipedia policy about disrupting the wikipedia, perhaps wp:pointy would be relevant. It may be a gray area and I am not inclined to open an ANI incident report about your actions, although I think a case could be made for that if you continue.

Go ahead and put them up for AfD if you think for some reason that you must. I expect that I will argue against them in that forum. I would appreciate the courtesy of a notice to my Talk page if I do not respond promptly to an AfD, as I may not have all New Rochelle area articles on my watchlist. doncram (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Neptune Island

A random sampling of the sources finds that 100% of them check out. Small sample size or not, there's no reason to vindictively delete an article with no plausible alledged flaws. If you're unsatisfied, there's always tardy deletion. WilyD 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• For cases that require extensive investigation, there's always tardy deletion. "Could be problematic, though I have no real evidence to this effect" is not a strong enough argument for speedy deletion. WilyD 20:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh - so far as I know? WilyD 20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • If you want to develop a consensus to delete the article, you may do so here. As a seemingly worthwhile, problem-free article, it's not a good candidate for speedy deletion. What's your hurry? WilyD 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Thanks for catching my incorrect choice of words, I had been up all night and wasn't thinking. However, the list of carefully chosen website links seems to fall under this rule. A carefully chose quantity controlled list, which is what this is. Again, I appreciate the title fix, and I don't know what I was thinking with the bold type, but I do feel the links should be left as is. Sincerely, speednat (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure who is right as I can see it is written both ways, and for every example of one way I am sure there is another the other way. Please don't take me the wrong way, I just feel that this is a strictly controlled list, where if one changed it to a list of external links that is just changing for the sake of changing. The links are going to be there (I think we can agree on that), just where. speednat (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First let me preface what I am going to say with, you obviously have your mind made up as to how "the way to do it is", and nothing I say will change your mind. "Almost" everything I have read states that there are NO hard fast rules merely guidelines. Now with that said lets revisit a few points, first you showed me articles, I was merely counterpointing to your this is how it is done, so don't act like that was my argument. Second, quoting rule 3.2 from this

3.2 Links to be considered

A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the [Template: dmoz] template.

  1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.
  2. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
  3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the [Template: dmoz] template.
  4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Pay close attention to Links to be considered. Also your rule that you quoted with the convenient word left out, let us revisit it. 1.2

External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox

Again pay close attention to "normally", meaning there are exceptions.

Finally, It is pretty apparent, that when the article is titled List of state ornithological organizations, and then the states are listed, that the HL probably will take you there.

I am not sure what your motive is here, if it is to force your opinions on others, or is it to come to an agreement, because your tactless typing, and your veiled insults to my ignorance( now that you are no longer a new member, it is time to get acquainted with policies) sure aren't meant to work a solution. I mean every other user that corrected me and then I thanked them responded with a no problem or a happy remark of some sort, what do you respond with when I thank you for catching my mistakes...nothing other than more rips on my style.

If you want to change it, I can't stop you, but these same polices point out to be nice, play nice, get consensus. I just can't help but think by your attitude that you have a vendetta against me. I have been nice, no overly nice to this point, and again, don't take this the wrong way, but my hackles are up with our conversation. speednat (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

unban proposal and topic ban request

I opened an Unban request, which also includes a topic ban request on yourself, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady. Please see. doncram (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Barringtons

FYI, I made the following changes you may wish to look at (and mercilessly edit as you think fit):

• University of Atlanta: added a new section, "Barrington University", with the school's history.

• Created the redirect, Barrington University.

• Added a disambiguation notice to Barrington College, pointing to the University of Atlanta article.

• Added both Barrington College and the University of Atlanta to the list of things named Barrington at Barrington.

• Added a disambiguation notice for Barrington College to the top of the University of Atlanta's Barrington University section, not the top of the article. That location is not entirely kosher, but it seems to make more sense there.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

2 DMOZ editors blocked here for spamming their own sites

Interesting. I recently come across two different accounts blocked by others for spamming where the spammers said they were also DMOZ editors:

• Glasgowmods -- see comments at User talk:Beetstra#GlasgowMods - The Mod Generation
• Bikerfan547

I wonder if their conflicts of interest here also show up in their DMOZ editing?
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Also, thanks for your help with University of Atlanta. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Orlady, many thanks for your input on this matter which i really appreciate. I would certainly accept any decision based on the contents of the website, although i do feel, as it is in fact documenting aspects of the mod subculture, The Mod Generation[4] would certainly add value to the article. If the matter could be reviewed I feel sure The Mod Generation could suitably be placed alongside the other links already in place. In any case, it is at least of some comfort that the site is not considered spam! A.B. you are very welcome to check the links i have added on DMOZ [5] where my interests are declared (perhaps you could have done so first before referring to me as a spammer)

On the subject of the Open Directory Project, i mentioned that i edit the Modernist subcategory (as 'troublewithid')in Society/Subcultures[6] - i have asked for this to be renamed 'Mod' or perhaps 'Mods' which is more likely to be used as a search term and would tie in with the title of the article in Wikipedia. I have made a requests through the boards. If you can help with this i would again be grateful!

Glasgowmods 14.30, 31 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

International Parliament for Safety and Peace

Hello Orlady. Thank you for your comments at Talk:International Parliament for Safety and Peace and your improvements to the article. They were very helpful. I have changed the article and explained my edits on the talk page. I hope that you find time to contribute to the discussion at the talk page and/or the article itself. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle discussion notice

New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.

This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.

This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are mentioned as an involved party and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ ^talk 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Images of New Rochelle train station

Sockpuppet or not, it looks like a decent image to me. Can you be 100% sure that File:NRTrainStationInside.JPG is a copyvio? I've taken pictures of locations that are similar to those taken by other people in the past before. I'm pretty sure my main image of Montauk (LIRR station) isn't the first one from this angle. As for File:NewRochelleTicketBook.JPG, I don't think this is from 1921 either. I think it's older. The only thing I suppose you can do is find somebody with a copy of that ticket book, an check for the exact year. The one thing I dispute about them, however, is whether any of them should be categorized as being on the National Register of Historic Places. ----DanTD (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-peak hours can always be good times to shoot station interiors with no people. Also, have you ever seen the interior of East Hampton (LIRR station). I went there on May 11, 2008, and that place was pretty barren. I had the impression that it since it was opened only on Sunday I was going to be able to buy a ticket there and take the train to Montauk, but that wasn't the case. I'm not saying you couldn't be right, I'm just considering that there might be other possiblities. ----DanTD (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My speculation that it might be older than 1921 comes from old LIRR paperwork, as seen here(http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/images/lirrpasses.htm). Some of the stuff from Arrt's Arrchives look to be around the same age and older. ----DanTD (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly hope that you're wrong, because they look kind of nice, even the one you want to delete. I've looked at the links you showed me, and so far, I haven't seen any evidence of similarity to the ones that were posted. One shot of the ITC that I saw looked like it might've been from I-95, but that was it. Tell me something; Does this image look fuzzy to you at all? Because I shot it from an unconventional angle(the top of a platform shelter next to either a staircase or a ramp), and I had people staring at me as I did it, which I didn't really expect from New Yorkers, but I didn't let that stop me from taking it. ----DanTD (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Those 3 links I showed you (that Jvolkblum had copied from in the past) are by no means the only sources that Jvolkblum has plagiarized. Unfortunately, they are just examples. As for that image of the Bayside RR station, it is not at all fuzzy! --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the ticket book can't be older than 1916, which was when the New York Connecting Railroad opened and gave the New Haven access to "Pennsylvania Station". In fact, looking at some examples on eBay, a 1913 commutation ticket used an older "script" logo, while the logo on the image in dispute appears on a 1928 commutation ticket. I suspect that the ticket book is, in fact, post-1921. Have you considered soliciting Durova's opinion about the station image? She does a lot of image restoration and she could probably confirm that the station image was scanned. Choess (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind that last—see my comments on the Commons deletion discussion. The claimed date is inconsistent with internal evidence in the image. I agree it's been scanned. Choess (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts

Aren't you on Wikibreak? I get more and more tired of your "assumtions". Regarding the arbitration of your "case" that is probably going to be rejected, I must must say that there is one good thing coming out of that procedure. User:Carcharoth stated that he would reject the request but mentioned that "it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master" and that "it is common to become too easily persuaded that new accounts are socks, and eventually there will be collateral damage ...". What a wise guy! Orlady, you cause more damage to Wikipedia than good if you continue your quest. Is that what your intention is? Let your case rest, there are a million other more important things to do on Wikipedia than your hunt to catch the ghosts that follow you at night. doxTxob \ ^talk 02:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suffield University

I'm sure we would agree that Suffield University is clearly a diploma mill and there is some evidence to that end provided in the article. However, the page reads like targeted activism and clearly needs to take a less biased tone to sound anything like an encyclopedia entry. In addition, I requested a 5 day delete so that someone would respond to the previous requests to clean it up. I think it is irresponsible to delete not only my request but the request of someone else to clean it up. So now the article is just stick as a substandard stub as you continue to delete any requests for improvement. Furthermore, your message that I am starting an "edit war" is incorrect and I feel shows your intolerance for dissenting opinions. Clearly, I am not the only one who feels this as I read other comments made about your heavy handed edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumblebee (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I swear, you are the hardest person to make an admin ;) Are you still planning on completing your application or should I scrap it? FWIW, I think your existing responses are probably adequate. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. It's been a pleasure working with you thus far, and hopefully the RFA will continue in its current vein. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Things were so much easier in the old days ;) Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, sort of... – Quadell ^(talk) 22:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Orlady, I !voted "weak oppose" in your RfA, but I want you to know it's nothing personal. You do a lot of good work here. It's looking like the consensus will probably be that you should become an admin, and if so, I wish you the best in it and I hope you prove my fears baseless. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I also hope your fears are baseless, Quadell! Thanks for the note. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, Orlady, you've stepped on some hornets' nests in your defense of Wikipedia. With all the calls for investigations and fake webpage smear campaigns, you would think this was a Supreme Court nomination. Just four days left and coasting thus far, though. Bms4880 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly advice: inhale, exhale. Breathe. :-) Realize that if you engage in a long, strident argument on your RFA, most people won't read it, they'll just think you are the kind of person that engages in long strident arguments. Best possible answer to a personal attack on an RFA is something like "I disagree, but I'm sure you are arguing from the best motives. Thanks for sharing your opinion with the !voters." Short and polite. Don't try to win every argument at once, focus on one, you're trying to win adminship here. You will have plenty of time to deal with the arguments as they come up in context; I rather suspect they will. :-) --GRuban (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pregunta

Optional questions from User:ChildofMidnight  :) I was going to ask this at the RfA in case anyone else is interested. But maybe it's already answered soemwhere and I'm already in enough trouble... I was wondering what the "deal" or the story is with the New Rochelle issues? Can you clue me on what happened, why there was some drama involved and what the outcome has been? Sorry if I'm putting you on the sport or whatever. I'm sort of curious I suppose and I voted for you, but I was a little concerned upon being reminded about it. If you've already addressed it can you point me in the right direction? Thanks. And good luck with your RfA candidacy. Exciting stuff! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Was there a legit editor caught up in it too? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I remember seeing it mentioned a couple times and I wasn't sure what it was all about. I know accusations get thrown around a lot sometimes. :) Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

History of New Rochelle, New York

Hey Orlady,

You have been involved with the New Rochelle, New York topics for a while so I thought to let you know about my plan. That article is getting quite long and WP:split suggests that a split should be due at that length. I intend to split off the history part into a new article History of New Rochelle, New York to shorten the main article a little and proposed a possibe start at Talk:New Rochelle, New York/Temp with not much participation in the discussion yet. Anyway, the proposal is not worse than the article before and not better sourced yet, either. The content is improved, a copyvio has been removed and the stuff is much better to read as I have sorted the timeline into sections by topic for the centuries and re-formulated it to prose. The separate history article would make both articles easier to maintain and for users who are interested in the topic the better structure would make sure that additional information is added in the right place. I know you are quite busy at the moment with the RfA but I'd like you to have a short look at Talk:New Rochelle, New York/Temp and get a hint at your opinion. If you do not have any major (!) concerns, I will be bold and just go ahead. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 03:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Update. As you had no objection against the split, I was bold, went ahead and split the history material to History of New Rochelle, New York. As for the content: Nothing got worse, this just moved material from one place in mainspace to another place in mainspace. That should make maintenance much easier. There it has a talkpage Talk:History of New Rochelle, New York to discuss improvement and I have inserted the relavant concerns about the content made by you and Hans Adler there already. Good hints! See you there. I am going to leave a note at Hans Adlers page, too, to let him know. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 22:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Doncram

Yeah, actually he has behaved badly with others. See User talk:Bedford/Archive10#Recent interchanges at DYK for an example of how Doncram got into a sissy-boy slap party with User:Bedford. Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 30#Referencing style reprise and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 29#Consensus on infoboxes, refs are a couple examples of Doncram's behavior, though I seem to remember a lot of arguments between Doncram and Bedford at T:TDYK. (Not that Bedford is a saint, either -- you'll remember that he got desysopped by Jimbo Wales.) (Not that I'm a saint, either, come to think of it -- I lost sysop privileges due to my complete inability to handle an argument at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling.)

I'm just amazed at Doncram's complete admiration for the contributions of a sockpuppet who's been willing to plagiarize and to create deliberately wrong articles. I don't understand it.

Why don't you just let Doncram know about your opinion instead of badmouthing him here, Elkman? Have you ever considered that there might be a reason that you lost sysop priviledges? You seem to be causing your own problems. Considering that you try to make nice with a possible future admin here to promote your list, makes you much more of a sissy that Doncram. Doncram stands up to his opinion in the open and exposes himself to discussion. You just hide out, and and wait for a good moment to promote your own best interest, which is not necessarily the best for Wikipedia. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Then file WP:RFAR against me. Or, go to WP:AN/I and complain about me there. Actually, forget that; I'll just file a WP:AN/I notice against myself and just look for comments there. And let's completely forget about bringing the Hennepin County list to featured list status because you've just told me that should never happen. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you chose to do but don't blame other editors for your troubles. Please leave the link to the WP:AN/I you intend to file against yourself on my talk page, so I can add my opinon there. I have requested a Checkuser against myself related to an accusation on Orlady's RfA and no one cared about it. That system of self-questioning should be developed further on Wikipedia. doxTxob \ ^talk 05:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On a 95% unrelated note, I'm thinking about nominating National Register of Historic Places listings in Hennepin County, Minnesota for featured list status, but I'm undecided. Since you've done a few FLC reviews before, what's your take on the list? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Never mind, given the above. Building the list is a monumentally bad idea. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Great job so far keeping your cool under fire. Just one day left. Sorry to have put you through all this. I'll have to buy you a wikibeer after it's all over :) Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've revised my comment. My apologies. Thanks for persisting in asking me to look again. DGG (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA! It must have been a surrealistic process to be the object of such vehement and irrational diatribes. Glad to see that the barbarians were beaten back at the gate. You'll be a great Admin. Fladrif (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Congratulations on making WP:100. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm thinking about applying too and would appreciate some feedback on this user page's talk page: User:BQZip01/RfA4

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Orlady,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and are aware of the items on the Administrators' reading list. Finally, please don't hesitate in contacting me if you need anything. Best of luck in your new position! —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA closed

Congratulations. I hope for the best, now. Good luck. doncram (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations new admin

....I would have been seriously upset if someone with your record had not been made an admin while mere dilettantes like me sailed through the process. Congratulations! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfA. I'm sure I'll be coming to you frequently for DYK updates. (In fact, one's due now; I've gotta run though :( ). I've taken the liberty of bumping you from the DYK-nonadmin participants to the willing to help DYK admins; hope you don't mind. Of course, move yourself to "actively involved" if you're inclined. Shubinator (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is OK to list me as a "willing to help" admin at DYK, but due to real life commitments and the need to figure out how to handle this mop thingie before I actually use it, I definitely should not yet be listed as "actively involved". --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that I should congratulate you, but I certainly congratulate Wikipedia for finding another highly qualified fool who will do a lot of good work for a measly salary! --Hans Adler (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans has a good point :-) therefore, I would like to congratulate you on the honor and the vote of confidence that this means. Your contributions are much appreciated. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job seeing it through to the end. Welcome to mopdom! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these good wishes -- and thanks to everyone (and I do mean "everyone") who took the time to participate in the RfA process. I don't have time right now to thank people individually, but you know who you are. Of course I appreciated the statements of support, and from the opposition statements I learned some things that I will keep in mind for the future. Thanks to all -- I hope to use these new tools wisely and for the general benefit. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though I did not !vote to support I wish you the best of luck! henrik•talk 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oak Ridge commemorative congatulations!

Congratulations! --GRuban (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Welcome to hell. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the Orladymania bandwagon is rolling! Congratulations, you earned it. I'm going to return to my project and content building and article writing, which I have to say I find more cathartic and rational than this RfA stuff (nice photo, whoever posted it!). Bms4880 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! We have never had interaction before, but I was following your RFA. I finally got around to looking at your contribs and adding a support only to find that you had already passed :D. Congrats again and best luck dealing with the headache ;) Lucifer (Talk) 02:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

now that you've passed, you can of course count on me for any support needed. DGG (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the club; just don't swing it too vigorously at the beginning... ps. Scrape through? This is "scrape through"! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord...what have we done?...

Oh my...

:-P Surely this is a sign we have angered the gods...

In all seriousness, congratulations. Enjoy the glories of handling the mop. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

      My congratulations to you as well. Here's hoping this turns out okay. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to BQZip01 for the admonitory link to WP:SARCASM and the mushroom cloud image. Here's hoping that they serve as useful reminders for me. (Wink) --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on your successfull RfA! ϢereSpielChequers 22:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

<--- "I am become death, eater of vandals"?

And congrats to you, Orlady. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on passing your RFA. I opposed, but with regrets, and I'm still happy you passed - it shows my concerns weren't shared by most commenters. I hope and trust that they will prove to have been entirely incorrect. Congrats again, and good luck. :) Robofish (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! It made my day to see you were now an admin. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Book about 1967 Maple Leafs

Hi there. Forgive my ignorance but I had no idea about notability. I will try to figure it out. In the meanwhile, I was able to find details on google.ca I am not sure if I am on the right track.

• http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&q=Maple%20Leafs%20book%20by%20Damien%20Cox&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

Maple Leaf (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Hey there! If you protected Alcoholic beverage in response to the recent WP:RFPP request, make sure to note it at RFPP using a template that the bot will pick up (such as {{RFPP|s}}. I'm just letting you know as you are a new admin; if you were experienced, I would have assumed you did it outside of RFPP and I would have posted an RFPP response myself... Tan | 39 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob. And, I'm a veteran, you can reply on your talk page and I'll see it. I am on RFPP a lot - if you have any questions, want verification of a decision you made, or just want some advice, let me know. Some other commoners there are Tiptoety and SoWhy. Tan | 39 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice. That's probably my last RFPP for a little while. Enough excitement for one day! I had been aware of the vandalism on pages related to that one, so I figured I I'd give that one a try (instead of continuing to just look at the shiny new tools and their documentation). --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Help request

Any chance you could wander over to User:BQZip01/RfA4 and give a little feedback? I'm looking to possibly reapply for RfA and some feedback from a recent success story might be useful. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mount Pleasant Winery

Hey Orlady, I'm not going to respond on the Reliable Sources board because I'm disengaging myself from the situation before I risk becoming uncivil, but I invited some neutral Wine Project members to chim in and deal with the editor. I explain my side of the story on that page. I'm not disputing the reliability of a TTB document, just the verifiability of the particular number that he provided (which I now suspect he probably mistyped) and the triviality of the info since no other reliable source seems to touch on. I know he seems to be hung up on the "11 minutes" thing but I can only assume he's never heard of instant messaging. Anyways, I'm stepping aside but I've appreciated your level headness and insight on the DYK boards and so I just wanted to clear up that I wasn't disputing government sources. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK update

It's been 6+ hours since the last DYK update, so it's running a bit late. Could you shift the batch from queue 3 to T:DYK? Thanks. :) Jamie^☆S93 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I think we are both trying to update dyk .... you keep on... I'll watch and help if needed Victuallers (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Doing fine so far. Looks like Vic reset the time already. Don't forget to increment the next queue count to 4. I can take credits and archiving this time around :) Shubinator (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To fix the time, follow the instructions I gave Vic at his talk page; just copy and paste the code. Shubinator (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...one of the names in the credits looks rather familiar, so I'll have to pass on credits :( . You can use the queue before clearing to do credits. Shubinator (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Vic messed up the time. Just copy and paste (replacing all current text) into Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, trust me :)

<noinclude>{{DYK-Refresh}}
<!--Replace the number in the line below with: {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
Then save to reset the clock to the current time. --></noinclude>
{{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}

Shubinator (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Vic got it. I've gotta dash... Shubinator (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Vic got it. Never a dull moment. And I really can't take the time to do the credits right now... --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

JamieS93's got it. Shubinator (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. :-) --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another update is due from queue 4. I can do credits and archiving. Shubinator (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For the first minute it does that since the parser rounds down, so it thinks it's -1 hours, which translates to red. It's normal now. Shubinator (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the code for the box, and tweaked it so hopefully now -1 hours = normal color. Shubinator (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the update! Shubinator (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you do an update? From queue 4 of course. Shubinator (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, just saw you did it. Shubinator (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the credits. --Orlady (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just doing my part. Thank you for doing the update! (Oh, and the queue can be cleared now.) Shubinator (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of notes on DYK: When temporarily uploading images from Commons just for the Main Page appearance, tag them with {{C-uploaded}}. This puts the image into a category that others occasionally check, so an admin will delete it later in case you forget to. Also, make sure the images have rollover text, both when assembling updates and when putting them into T:DYK. Thanks for doing so many updates in the past few days! Shubinator (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I know it's a lot to digest; make like a cow and grow an extra stomach ;) Shubinator (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi! My congratulations and best wishes on becoming an administrator.We probably crossed paths-most of the time I am at WikiProject Wisconsin working on articles on my native state of Wisconsin-again my thanks for what you do-RFD (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know you either

In my RfA you said "This user's moniker is familiar to me, but I can't figure out where I have encountered him." and this has caused me to search using the WikiMeda search, Google, and I've also manually browsed much of your contributions. I can't find any specific article we've worked 'together' on (i.e. at the same time). We may have done some vandal fighting at the same time. Anyway, thanks for your !vote. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're an admin...

Congrats on success! Since I opposed, not for personal reasons, but for timing, I'm optimistic that things will work out well overall — especially since DYK is hardly a battleground :-) Hopefully we can forget about Jvolkblum altogether soon and go back to a more peaceful existence! Enjoy using your new tabs... Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orlady, congratulations upon being approved for administrator and good luck with the broom! Thank you also for your recent edits to the Rutherford University article. I just detected them. The article looks better now! Best regards, gidonb (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm glad to hear there's new DYK admin! We look forward to your help. Hopefully the DYKbot will be programmed soon to make it much easier. Royalbroil 03:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Haskell reference

Hi, Orlady - thanks for the reference you added to the Giovio article! I've had a hard time finding English language sources that discuss the collection extensively, so this is extremely helpful. Many thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an excellent find, not least because he's read (and says he relies heavily on) an unpublished study I've been trying to get ahold of. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK updates

Don't forget to update the queue count when you do an update. There's a link to do it at the top of the main queue page. Gatoclass (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, with so many pages to edit, it's easy to get lost. I know I have hit "review" a few times and then forgotten to hit "save" afterwords :) Gatoclass (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stem cell laws

Thank you! I just gave a copy of the main page to my graduating intern who helped me research it. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Deepest thanks for the barnstar. DYKcheck is my best contribution to Wikipedia. I wouldn't let it die just because DYK tweaked its formatting! Shubinator (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Orlady

Thanks for your note. It's nice to see the great work you've been putting in at DYK. To answer your questions, only one example in the fossil record is shown at ref 9 (this one is extremely slow to load) and 10 - as the author explained. Archidermapteron martynovi has only one location, in Karatau, Kazakhstan - hence only one fossil. This is from the Paleobiology Datebase which aims to encompass the entire fossil record. Having only a single fossil for a species is certainly not unusual. The ref for scientists using this fossil to determine the relative age of others is offline - ref 17 - so therefore we AGF (and yes I should have used a grey tick). Basically, stepping back from this a little, this is a good article which the author has worked hard to create. It is approaching 5000 characters and contains 19 references. The author has also tried very hard to answer our queries and objections by adding additional references. I think this article is an excellent example of Wikipedia's newest articles (in fact better than most!). Given the mass of unreferenced dross currently available at en-wiki, I think we need to encourage editors that create good articles like this. Generally, I think an adversarial review process for DYK is fairly off putting for editors (not talking about you here). I'd be interested to know what you think of the review process - we've been getting some long-winded traffic jams at the bottom of the suggestion page lately which is contributing to the backlog. Unfortunately, at the same time, many articles are not reviewed until the last minute. That's why Shubinator and I tried to clear some of the log jam last night. I hope you are having a very good weekend. (And belated congratulations on our concurrent be-mopping recently) Cheers, Paxse (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up. Rather than discussing sourcing and wikipedia standards (where I suspect we have different views in any case), how about we edit? To whit ... that scientists have used a single complete fossil of Archidermapteron martynovi to determine the relative age of other species of earwig? What do you think? Paxse (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice solution - well done. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK bump

If you're around, could you take a look at the sets in next and next next and bump them to queue 3 and queue 4 if they're up to scratch? Shubinator (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you clear queue 4? It wasn't cleared two updates ago after the credits were done. Shubinator (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DONE. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV for Category:Knuckleball pitchers

The close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Category:Knuckleball pitchers, in which you participated, is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 April 28#Category:Knuckleball pitchers. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)