User talk:Orlady/Archive 11

American World University

An anon keeps adding two links to the External Links section that I don't see the relevance since American World University is not mentioned in either link that I can find. They won't discuss on the talk page nor leave an edit comment. Can you please consider semi-protecting the page? (Note: if you'd rather me ask for this kind of help on the general admin page then please let me know.) Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for one month. I hope that resolves things. --Orlady (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll see. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

it's harassment. Please stop.

Orlady, your edit and multiple others recently are, in my view, insulting and over the line.

A very high proportion of your edit history in recent days or weeks has been your following around to topics where i have edited. In several instances you have deleted my work, either by deleting a disambiguation article or by deleting substantial content that I had added, and you have called for outright deletion of more. The common thread seems to be that you wish to show me up, to demonstrate that I have made errors of judgement or that i have written poorly. If a disambiguation page or a band article that I have started are really so bad, then you should have confidence that other editors will tag them, improve them or take other action.

You have been asked previously by me and others to stop following me around. Your continuing to do so is adding up to a bad case of wp:harassment.

Please stop following me around. I don't deserve this. The other editors of NRHP articles and other wikipedia editors who get involved don't deserve this. --doncram (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are making a uncomplimentary spectacle of yourself. When it was pointed out that Old Natchez Trace should simply redirect to Natchez Trace instead of being made into a disambiguation page, the sensible thing for you to do would have been to say "Oh, thanks" (or the like, either on a talk page or just silently to yourself) and move on. You are doing fine work, often thanklessly, in your disambiguation project. When undertaking such as massive project with so many diverse elements, it's reasonable to expect others to correct or improve upon your work every once in a while. Instead, you seemingly over-reacted by going to great lengths to try to prove to the world that you had been right in the first place, regardless of what the consensus of other contributors might be. Your creation of the abomination Natchez Trace (band) is a prima facie example of that over-reaction. I suggest that you stop beating dead horses and focus on what you started out to do. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Old Town Bridge

Is this edit by you a mistake? It seems related to my having started article at Old Town Bridge (Franklin, Tennessee). --doncram (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No mistake. The link that I changed was red -- it pointed to Old Town Bridge (Tennessee). I didn't notice that you had started that other article. I had noticed your article Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), which was kind of lacking in substance (Aside: please make a habit of putting geographic locations into the bodies of your NRHP stubs -- don't assume that the infobox or title will suffice -- infoboxes or supposed to supplement and summarize the body of the article, not replace it), and I was in the middle of expanding it to cover all 3 adjacent sites that are called "Old Town" in various forms. I have now redirected the bridge article to point to the omnibus article (which includes your infobox). --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like bullshit, meaning, that seems to be a misrepresentation. You focused on the 1801 bridge because i brought it up, here, with links to the article i had started. Please recall you were busy deriding me for original research in identifying NRHP places associated with the Natchez Trace, and yet i found this bridge which was part of one branch of the trace. Your tone and actions are intolerable. --doncram (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, brother. I am telling the truth. But I realize that your antagonism toward me has become so severe that I believe if I told you what day of week it was you would claim that I was lying. But answer me this: If I had known about that bridge stub of yours before I drafted my input to Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), why would I have gone to the trouble to create my own version of an infobox for it (part of this edit), instead of using yours (which I inserted a few minutes later in this edit and then augmented slightly in this edit)? --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To others: The infoboxes are cut-and-paste jobs from the Elkman infobox generator, perhaps with a tiny amount of additional editing. It is bullshit for you to imply that your coming to the Old Town and Old Town Bridge articles is independent of my starting them.

Doncram, I am aware that you use the Elkman infobox generator to create infoboxes, but that doesn't mean that I do. I have never used it, and never even bothered to figure out how to use it. I don't have much use for infoboxes, so I am generally disinclined to spend time making them. Since there was already one infobox in the Old Town article, I created infoboxes for the archaeological site and the bridge by copying another infobox and pasting in information from cited sources. I repeat: Please assume good faith, brother. I am telling the truth. But I realize that your antagonism toward me has become so severe that I believe if I told you what day of week it was you would claim that I was lying. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, you have misrepresented and played games along these lines plenty of times before. I've also on many occasions accepted what you had to contribute. But, I am asking for you to stop following me around, and then there is this additional case of your butting in. You had indicated in discussion that you were giving up and would allow me to develop the NRHP-natchez trace theme, or that is how I understood your statement prior to the above diff where I mentioned. Then, the next day, you are back at it and focusing on article topics i was just making a dent in. Chalk it up, if you wish, to a "misunderstanding" on my part. But, will you agree to stop following me to new topics? Or not? On my part, you are making the editing environment unacceptable by your badgering on nearly everything i do. Please answer the question. If that is too complicated a question for you to answer simply, would you agree to participate in mediation to define an acceptable solution. --doncram (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again: Please assume good faith, brother. I am telling the truth. But I realize that your antagonism toward me has become so severe that I believe if I told you what day of week it was you would claim that I was lying. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You know what's really bullshit? This whole project, that's what. The thin stub articles are bullshit. The arguing is bullshit. The constant accusations of someone following someone else around are bullshit. The idea that Doncram's editing is sacred and has to be protected is bullshit. The idea that Doncram, or Orlady, or Polaron, or Station1 are beyond criticism is bullshit. But, what's really and truly bullshit is that WP:NRHP -- which used to be a place for people to write interesting articles about historically and architecturally important places -- has just come down to a bunch of arguing and protectionism without any regard for the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm also sick and tired of my infobox generator being abused and being treated like it's the only step necessary to make an encyclopedia article. Guess what? IT ISN'T. An encyclopedia article needs to provide at least a little bit of context to tell someone why a building or structure is notable. I've tried explaining this before and nobody seems to care. No, what's important is that everyone needs to preserve their own little fiefdom, instead of collaborating to write an encyclopedia. I'm truly embarrassed to be associated with this project. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia policy for you

I suggest you review this, and think about what that means regarding saying a business was identified as having been "operating illegally", when not a single mainstream news source, or any public court record, seem to substantiate the exceptional claim. - CRedit 1234 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an agency of the U.S. state of Oregon is not a mainstream entity and should not be considered a reliable source of information about topics within that agency's primary expertise? I believe that you will have difficulty gaining consensus here for that point of view. Please note that the article does not say that Washington International University operated illegally. Rather it says that "Oregon Office of Degree Authorization reported that the Pennsylvania Department of Education had provided the information that WIU was then [referring here to 2007 and 2008] operating illegally in Pennsylvania." That's hardly the kind of "Exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources" that is discussed in the section of WP:Verifiability that you point to above.

(You aren't by chance related to the person who recently informed me that the National Institutes of Health is unqualified to provide interpretive information on the findings of medical research, are you?) --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The reliable source that says in big red letters, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE BECOME AWARE OF SOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATABASE. Besides, you are relying on Archive.org, not the Oregon ODA. For fun -- open the link I provided you above in a browser like Firefox. Do you see the RED LETTERS? Next, open the link in Opera. Where did those RED LETTERS go? How can you be so sure of the reliability of a source that makes highly important text disappear on some browsers? The more you struggle, I hear, the faster the quicksand swallows you. -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That red-letter statement is being discussed at Talk:Washington International University. I am not the user who recently added that reference to the article, and it's been a long time since I perused the archived pages from the ODA website. However, I recall that the antecedent of "this" in the red-lettered statement is not altogether clear, but my recollection is that it referred to the U.S. Department of Education database, not the ODA's list. More recently I have observed that the U.S. Department of Education database is not particularly up to date -- for example, it does not include some schools that were recently accredited. --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to get off on such a bad foot

While it's unfortunate, I can only assume that you're slipping into "wikistalking" as a means to make me feel unwelcome at Wikipedia. Well, let me lend you a bit of advice, if you're open to hearing it. Instead of just reverting my good-faith effort to make Wikipedia more reliable, then bounding off to some other matter of importance to you, it would have been rather easy for you to simply find a proper reference, as I did and just fix my egregious error of using Wiktionary to try to correct a "citation needed" tag. Now, do you think we can move forward in harmony, or are you really dead-set against even my work with Merriam-Webster as a source? -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RS noticeboard

I've brought up the issue on using archived pages from the Oregon database at the RS Noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved to this page from User talk:Doncram who added the title "counting"

Here's the conversation that Orlady started there, but that Doncram apparently doesn't want other visitors to his page to see:

One, two, three --> 4RR!!!

Have you been counting? Have you noticed that you have had 4 reverts on Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation) in less than 8 hours? Have you considered what this means -- or is your point sufficiently important to you that you think it's worth getting yourself blocked for? --Orlady (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true, as you will see if you look at my edits i did develop the article in substantial ways. And you're badgering. --doncram (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't block you for the 4 reverts -- that would have been as pointless as what you have been doing. Regardless, listing 7 piped links to the same page on a disambigation page is not "developing" anything, much less an "article." Never mind that this disambiguation page of yours has no reason to exist. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it would be highly inappropriate for you to use your administrative powers to block me on anything. You have admitted to following my edits, and have general appearance of pursuing a campaign of wp:harassment against me. Others have warned you to back off at times. I have repeatedly asked you to back off. You're mostly just causing drama; you are mostly not improving articles by following and making minor/weird/other changes to articles that i work on. About the Old Natchez Trace articles, i have developed legitimate content, most of what is present in the collection article and otherwise. Developing sections and linking to them from the disambiguation page was one part of "developing", yes. --doncram (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your name in lights

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Whack-A-Mole, and keep up the good work. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

American City University

Do you think American City University is notable? I certainly do not think so. If not, maybe it should be listed in List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning‎, but why leave a redlinnk encouraging people to create an article that we both think is non-notable and which has already been deleted? I suspect a significant number of the "schools" listed with redlinks are not notable. Fine to blacklist them on the list, but why clog WP with articles? Novaseminary (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of American City University

An article that you have been involved in editing, American City University, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American City University. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Novaseminary (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On further research, I have come up with a rather important question. Why do we think the university in California has any connection to the one that used to be in Wyoming? The one in Wyoming was fronted by a man named Ron Hinz[1][2]. The one in CA seems to have a president Ronelle Langley.[3] The one in Wyoming was affiliated with London City College (and 14 other countries)[4]. London City College is still around, but no longer mentions ties to the current ACU.[5] The one in Wyoming had URL http://www.americancityuni.edu/ The one in CA has URL http://www.acuni.us/. I think they may be unrelated but for the name. --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronelle Langley wears many hats, but may be for real: President of ACU Visiting professor at University of Northern Iowa Psychologist, Cedar Falls Iowa Executive Coach president of Executive Coaching International First Lady of Cedar Falls, Iowa[6] --GRuban (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

[EC -- one that Wikipedia didn't alert me to] -- I haven't found documented evidence of a connection, which is why the history section of the article simply refers to the name. However, the timing leads me to believe there's a connection. The university of this name appeared in California (as if it had sprung full-born from the head of Zeus) in the first half of 2009 (that's based on the dates on the "catalogue" on the website and on the "Ronelle Langley" blog), which happens to be the very same time period that most of the unaccredited schools were closing up shop in Wyoming after Newport International University lost its legal challenge to the new Wyoming law. Moreover, both the Wyoming and California versions of ACU just happen to focus on business administration. It's not uncommon for this type of institution to move from state to state or country to country in response to changes in the regulatory environment. However, it's unusual (but not unheard of) for the key personnel to change -- but, then again, I'm not convinced that "Ronelle Langley" is for real. I find it fascinating that ACU's president has the same name and photo of a woman who works as a psychologist and executive coach in Iowa, and sometimes teaches at the University of Northern Iowa. Compare the webpages for the Iowa Ronelle Langley ([7] and [8] and [9] and [10]) with the ACU President's page. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed the piece about her marriage to the mayor of Cedar Falls. That (coupled with her positions on state boards in Iowa) makes it even less likely that she's playing a leadership role for an institution in California. --Orlady (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The blog posts look fairly realistic. You really think a company picked a real person and is pretending she is their president without her knowledge or active participation? I doubt it; if they were going to make something up, why not make up the person completely? A made up person isn't going to sue them. Anyway, that's not the real point. The real point is I think we need something to show the California ACU is in some way connected to the Wyoming ACU, or we need to split the articles. Otherwise they're two unaccredited universities with the same name, but it's not a particularly distinctive or hard to invent name. If you're in the business of issuing diplomas, having a name that conveys respectability is a good thing, and there aren't an unlimited number of those. --GRuban (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm sorry I'm causing trouble. That wasn't my intent. I saw this notice on your talk page, and thought - ah, I can do some research and help out an old acquaintance. Can I ask which version (or incarnation) of the ACU you're really interested in, the one in WY or the one in CA? Because I think we probably have established enough notability for the one in WY, international coverage and all. Here's a happy graduate of the school in Dubai. --GRuban (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You aren't causing problems, GRuban. To the contrary -- I'm delighted to make your acquaintance again, and to have you contributing your online research skills to delving into the stories of shadowy unaccredited institutions.

I don't have any particular interest in either manifestation of "American City University" -- I merely have acquired an avocational interest in investigating the stories of these kinds of schools and making those stories available to Wikipedia users. --Orlady (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

causing drama by wikihounding, again

Comment posted at User talk:Doncram and moved to this page by Doncram, who added the above heading:

Rough-draft articles that should be in user space rather than mainspace

Hi. I notice that your recent new article William Pinto House is still at the rough draft stage (with blanks to fill in, question marks, etc.), and I repeat my suggestion that this type of page should be moved to your user space until it no longer looks quite so much like an incomplete outline for an article.

Would you see clear to do that? Would it help you to know that eligibility for DYK is measured from the date an article is moved to main space? --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, i have repeatedly and politely enough asked you to stop bothering me. I believe it is abundantly clear that you dislike me personally. Your following my edits to find minor complaints, to threaten to move new stubs to Userspace, to start deletion processes, etc., is amounting to wp:wikihounding or wp:harassment. It appears you are trying by this personal campaign to detract from my contributing to wikipedia, to cause me to quit, perhaps. It is indeed causing me grief and it is causing some others, such as User:Elkman, great concern. You are causing needless drama. --doncram (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Doncram: It is true that I dislike you. I have admitted that in private e-mail to you. However, I believe that you played a key role in causing me to form a negative opinion of you. As I stated last Sunday in an e-mail reply to you that you have not yet acknowledged:

As I see it, you started disliking me first -- long ago you became convinced that I was pursuing a personal vendetta against you. Quite honestly, I believe that you formed that view before I had even realized that I had interacted with you on multiple occasions (I had not paid much attention to you as a person at that point). However, with the passage of time I have to admit that the feeling became mutual -- I have formed a strong dislike of you. Still, I have no quarrel with 99.9% of what you do (and in fact agree with you much of the time), and I actually pay no attention to most of your work.

You are hardly improving my opinion of you with your behavior. For example, how would you expect me to feel about you when you remove my comments from your talk page and place them on my talk page with a refactored structure that turns them into personal attacks on me -- particularly when you repeatedly revert the changes I made to my own talk page? --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Doncram: The question is valid and politely put. The article should not be in article space in its present condition. This convention is routinely observed by most experienced editors, and I fail to understand your objection, or your interpretation that this is an imposition or part of a campaign against you. I am aware of the AfD events of earlier this month that to which Elkman referred, by the way, before you deleted his comment from your userpage. Acroterion _(talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, you are being an absolute... well, I can't use that word here. When Orlady (politely) suggests that you shouldn't put articles into article space until they're complete, you get all defensive and you say that she's wikihounding you. When someone else suggests something similar, you say that either Orlady, or I, or Polaron, or someone else has poisoned other people's thinking about your articles. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe other people, independently, feel that you shouldn't be writing incomplete articles and putting them into article space?

Yes, Orlady can be a bit abrasive at times, but she shouldn't have to walk on eggshells every time she wants to say something to you.

You're worried about Orlady wanting you to quit? Guess what? You're already pushing me out the door. I can't check my watchlist without seeing some form of this argument. You know, I really used to enjoy WP:NRHP and I thought it was an interesting place to write articles about historically important places and good architecture. Now, it's just turned into a venue for arguments, and the gold standard for articles is an infobox and three sentences with a bunch of blanks yet to be filled in. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent, ec with Elkman's comment, responding to E's previously expressed concerns but not adjusted to respond to E's comment here)
Okay, here we go, others involved now. For others who will be reviewing this in the future, what is being written and done by Orlady is playing for the crowd, and my responses here will somewhat be for the same purpose. Perhaps I should be more guarded in what i say, and i should play more for the appearance in future mediation and/or arbitration, but I am indeed miffed. I would prefer not to be engaging in this; she is the one following me around and sniping. I don't believe she is trying to improve wikipedia or anything by following me around. My reaction to her latest jab, in removing it from mine to her Talk page, probably pleases her, as she probably believes she will appear "in the right" (and Acroterion's comment is supportive of her view about this little incident). I expect she is trying now to build a little record of prim, correct comments criticising whatever she can find that i do which will serve her purposes. Based on Elkman's recent comment on this Talk page or somewhere else, I believe that Elkman believes that I think i am above others' criticisms, that i don't care, etc. That is the opposite of truth: I do respond to criticisms; I do seek out others feedback; i discuss criticisms that are raised. I do not currently respond well to Orlady's critiques, however, as I am pretty fed up with her sniping. As i have stated elsewhere, Orlady has repeatedly criticized me and in many cases her criticism has been incorrect, because it seems she was uninformed or recklessly indifferent or careless or whatever other reason. She also has made legitimate points, but she is basically trying to find fault, and she does see red whenever i edit anything. In numerous cases it appears she has disregarded, recklessly, what i said and what others have said, because it seems she is bent on proving me wrong. She wants to see fault. I can't tell the difference between her legitimate points vs. other points; she has lost credibility with me. I would strongly prefer for her to butt out, and to let other editors find their way to whatever needs to be done. (I am also aware that by saying this, I will probably invite more editors to come scrutinize and find fault. Also, Orlady, under scrutiny and trying to be squeakily correct, can probably find some clever, correct little criticisms to make.) I don't know whether Orlady believes that I think i am above criticism or not, but I believe she thinks she can exploit that idea expressed by Elkman.

For the record, i was/am fully expecting for everyone concerned about the evident rancor between Orlady and myself, to be interested and aware of one very scoffing comment i made in a recent AFD. Here it is: [11] Elkman commented about it, at my Talk page, in this diff, and i removed it in this diff. I frankly don't know what to do about Elkman's concern about all this stuff; i feel bad that he is concerned about the apparent rancor. Elkman recalls fondly, as i do, past days when the NRHP wikiproject seemed cooperative and fun. I don't know how to get Orlady to back off. I am not seeking to criticize her edits in other areas, which i sometimes notice when i feel i have to review her contributions to see what she has been up to on articles i have worked on. If I wanted, I could easily find fault with a whole lot that i have noticed in passing from time to time. I think it is singularly unhelpful for Orlady to be following me to find faults.

To others, about the William Pinto House article. Orlady knows full well that i am working on, and have invited others' participation in, developing good starter articles for the New Haven NRHPs listed here. Others are invited by notice in the To Do box displayed at top right of WikiProject NRHP's Talk page, also recently created by me. Orlady has edited that To Do box and follows my work anyhow, so she is aware. This one article is not finished, correct. It is a stub article. If others are actually interested in developing articles, they can join in. Constructive involvement at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut is hereby invited. So far, I have been the only one recently developing articles there and Talking to myself there. I have been making good progress, having added NRHP references to many articles, having identified several topics for DYKs, and more. The Wm Pinto House one is one that i started on April 18, on a day that the NRHP documents link was not working, so i could not make more progress, and i started several stubs. On April 20, the doc was available and i completed out the reference and wrote a bit more in that article. On that day and others i brought other articles along further too. I planned, certainly, to do a good job developing them all, all on my own if necessary, and eventually I would probably announce that I had completed the campaign. Orlady and Acroterion are both very aware that i am capable of taking on big, productive campaigns and following them through, such as developing a comprehensive system of >3,000 dab pages relating to NRHP items. Because I have publicly committed myself in the public To Do list, I am even more on the hook for doing a good job with the New Haven articles. There is no reason to doubt that i will. There is room, however, for a fault-finder to try to take away pleasure from the process, and to poison the environment.

Acroterion, from your experience watching the 8 month long CT NRHPs saga, you are in a position to judge Orlady and my interactions, and I have had some disagreements with you but as you know I basically do respect your opinion. Along with Polaron, I invited your mediation in that long process, and I do appreciate your taking it on, despite it taking so long before it basically wound down. Do you honestly think it is helpful for Orlady to function as a watchdog on my edits? --doncram (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Because this comment is long, i broke it up into several paragraphs. Because it is on Orlady's talk page, she has more right than usual in other Talk pages to "refactor" discussions, but I will note I generally find those refactorings as unpleasant/slanted. I expect she or others may wish to cut up the comment by making insertions, as part of minimizing what i say. So, I expect that. Prove me right or wrong, i don't particularly care. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gosh. I suppose I need to thank you for suggesting that it might just possibly be OK for me to refactor a comment on my own talk page. Given the refactoring that you have already done on this page, I was thinking I might just have to give up and relinquish my talk page to you. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had enough. I'm on Wikibreak until July 5. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, this is exactly what I was talking about on my talk page a few days ago. User space is there for a reason.. to develop things that aren't ready to be in article space yet. Nearly every single other editor can follow this basic guideline... Why can't you? You don't see anything wrong with what you're doing, but if everyone else does, you should do something about it. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and do something you don't agree with. Everyone here is completely fine with you creating new articles and expanding them.. just don't leave any unfinished crap in article space. Do what you can in your user space and then move it out when you're finished. That's all we ask. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Orlady: "(with blanks to fill in, question marks, etc.)" It was ONE SENTENCE with two blanks and one question mark and no etc. that I can see! In my opinion it was a perfectly acceptable stub. Even if that ONE SENTENCE drove you nuts, why not remove that ONE SENTENCE to the talk page (as I have now done) and leave the other seven sentences as a stub?

That sentence with the two blanks and the question mark was only the most obviously incomplete element of the page. Among the other incomplete aspects are the fact that the article text doesn't indicate where in the world this house is, nor explain what "NRHP" means. Regardless, now that you've removed that sentence, I guess the subject is moot. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Acroterion: You're actually going to IGNORE the history, and just focus on the fact that this one question was, in your opinion, "valid and politely put"? And then you're going to say "I am aware of the AfD events of earlier this month that to which Elkman referred, by the way, before you deleted his comment from your userpage", inferring that he was trying to HIDE something by deleting this [12] profane comment by Elkman from his own talk page? My respect for you has just declined a bit.

You're right, I expressed myself poorly. Doncram does have a way of removing critical remarks from his user page, but Elkman was over the top, and Doncram had every right to remove it. My reaction to the AfD discussion, which I wasn't aware of until I saw Elkman's rant on Doncram's page, was general horror at the present level of tension. I therefore felt that I should respond to the initial comment above. I have not made my mind up about how the situation between D and O is to be improved (or whether I honestly give a damn anymore), but I do wish that they would both avoid each other. Creating stubs is not a heinous sin, nor is pointing out that it could be done better. My intention was to point out that Orlady's actual comment was in no way provocative, although by now I think every pinprick between them is magnified to an amputation. Orlady's initial observation was ill-advised. Doncram's reaction was predictable, and disproportionate. Acroterion _(talk) 02:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Elkman: The only way for you to have noticed THIS discussion is for you to have Orlady's and/or Doncram's talk page on your watchlist. If you are so distressed with dealing with them, why on earth would you keep them watched? And, Doncram has NEVER, to my knowledge, claimed a stub as GOLD STANDARD, just as a legitimate way of starting an article and inviting participation from others (which was, historically, an important way of growing Wikipedia).

Dude: "this is exactly what I was talking about"? No, it's not. You were talking about him creating too many WP pages (quite a few of which were not even NRHP pages), which he politely reviewed and agreed to work on getting rid of 14 of them. And, "You don't see anything wrong with what you're doing, but if everyone else does..." EVERYONE else does not. Several of you who are anti-stub do. I do not. Were there no history of criticism for perfectly acceptable stubs, then I could maybe believe it was actually that ONE SENTENCE that was causing everyone such anxiety. It is not required in any guideline or policy I have ever read to keep an article in user space until it is better than a stub. Lvklock (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Orlady is not the first to suggest that drafts do not belong in mainspace. On 2 April I left this message on Doncram's talk page under the heading "Articles being constructed": Re articles like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilkinson-Martin_House&oldid=353619275 Could you create these in your userspace and then move them over to mainspace once you're finished? It takes very little extra effort. Articles like that do not belong in mainspace for even a short time. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC) -- On 20 March, this message was left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation: Please don't render pages unreadable as you did with this edit. Use a talk page or a sandbox if you want to work on code. One of our readers would not know what to make of the Sutton House page right now and that is not right. MRSC (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC) -- If Doncram does not wish to follow advice from other editors that I believe represents a very basic consensus, that's his right, but it is unreasonable to say others are "bothering" him by asking him to do what virtually every other experienced editor does naturally. Station1 (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On the Wilkinson-Martin House article you point to, even I agree it didn't belong in article space, of course he was actively editing it at the time, and the version existed for only nine minutes, during which time you commented on it. How on earth did you even see it in that short period of time? On the other hand, the article being talked about here had only one slightly objectionable statement, in my opinion. I certainly believe that Wikipedia is better of with this minimal coverage of the subject than with no coverage at all. The other minimal items that Orlady mentions about this article are easily fixed. The energy to argue with Doncram over it greatly outweighs the energy to be expended addressing those items. lvklock (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So Lvklock is now editing the substance of Doncram's comments? How long has that been happening? --Orlady (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's never happened. I screwed up. First, I made an edit on a computer that Doncram had been signed in on without logging him off. Then I logged myself in and made some changes, including correcting the signature, but lost that edit. When I redid it, I failed to remove the incorrect signature. I assure you that the whole thing was my edit. Lvklock (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! Since I get a "You have new messages" alert every time somebody edits this page, I was more aware of the edit history than I might normally have been. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought Doncram had taken to referring to himself in the third person. But seriously, if the project doesn't come up with its own set of guidelines for stub creation, none of these issues will be resolved. Bms4880 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Station1: I do respond to feedback. About the Sutton House disambiguation page, the comment you quote is in a discussion section titled "feedback requested on NRHP dab pages" which I opened to request feedback, and where i have responded to feedback. I responded fully in several forums to MSRC: first i posted to MRSC's Talk page by this edit at 16:32, MSRC replied cordially by this edit at 16:34; MSRC then posted the comment you quote in this edit at 16:39 and I replied cordially in this edit at 17:22. I fixed up the Sutton House page by this diff of several edits in a row at 10:28 on 20 March and these edits on March 22. I further followed up at Talk:Sussex house by this apology on March 20. In the exchange, I realized and acknowledged that the way i converted a long-existing page to a dab page was unnecessarily disruptive. It was confusing to MSRC and perhaps readers whom MSRC spoke up for, that i had left the new dab page with the "NRHP dab needing cleanup" tag and work-in-progress. I did very much note and learn from the difference between that case vs. cases of brand new disambiguation pages with no prior usage, no readership, where the "NRHP dab needing cleanup" tag has been in place with no problem. And I have been working diligently to clear all such cleanup-needed cases, and there have been no cases like the Sutton House one since, I believe. I believe that MSRC was fully satisfied, and Station1, you could have commented in the open NRHP disambiguation feedback discussion section at the time if you thought it was not entirely satisfactory.

On the Wilkinson-Martin House, Station1, I created the article in 4 edits on 2 April yielding this perfectly clean and good article. When I received your comment at my Talk page, which you posted upon my very first edit, i had already made my 2nd edit. In my third edit there i added a "UC" tag for your benefit, and i then removed Station1's comment at my talk page, by then moot, by this edit. I then completed the 4th edit fully cleaning up the article. The article then had 934 characters. In following days i further developed it and it appeared on the Wikipedia mainpage as a DYK on 11 April 2010. I don't think there is anything wrong with what happened in that process. Station1 expressed concern about the article to me, and it was fully resolved (partly before i had received Station1's comment). So neither of the 2 items brought up by Station1 should give general concern to the Wikipedia editor community, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, yes you can probably pull up many instances where someone said something about what you were doing, and you fixed it, responding in a polite and civil manner (albeit in a massive wall of text). The point is not that you haven't responded to any criticisms...... it's that you've had many criticisms to respond to.. sometimes more than once. You test the waters to see what you can get away with and when someone cries foul, you say no one told you that you couldn't do that specific thing (even though you knew you couldn't do something 99.99% related)... so you didn't know. That, IMO, is bogus. You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know which practices are accepted and which are shunned. Like I said above.. sometimes you just have to cave in and do things the way everyone else wants them done.. not the way you want them done. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it's bogus to imply that Doncram went and picked out these examples. These are the examples that Station1 pulled up to illustrate Doncram not responding to feedback...poor choices to try to make THAT point, it seems. And, "it's that you've had many criticisms to respond to". Yup, that's true. No one could possibly make the huge contributions to Wikipedia that Doncram has and not ever be criticized. I suspect that over his full time at Wikipedia, his rate of criticisms is no larger than anyone else's.And so, "You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know which practices are accepted and which are shunned." That's right, he has. And he's also been around long enough to still be doing things in a way that was accepted and even encouraged in the past, and that still has no policy or guideline against it, and that now is "shunned" by SOME people (not everyone). He hasn't changed the way he's done things for all that time, attitudes about his way have changed. Sometimes you just have to cave and allow someone with a great history of contribution to continue contributing in their own way, which is, I thought, what a wiki is all about. Lvklock (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, my point was that other editors have previously said the same thing that Orlady said. If you had taken those previous suggestions not to publish drafts in mainspace, Orlady would have had no reason to "bother" you. You chose not to take those suggestions, so Orlady's comment should be neither a surprise nor viewed as unreasonable, even if you disagree with it. Wilkinson-Martin House is now a very nice article; it's just the right length, well written with a good overview and interesting details, good use of the infobox. If you just published articles like that after leaving the drafts in userspace, no one could say anything except what a fine contribution you're making. Sutton House is at least no longer a draft. So it's not those two examples that are of concern, but that you continue to do the same things on other articles and then complain when Orlady points it out. Contrary to your assertion that "there have been no cases like the Sutton House one since", there are at least half a dozen pages that I'm aware of that have exactly the same problem, most of which you edited after your friendly conversation about Sutton House, and which have been sitting that way in mainspace for around a month. If I edited them, you would revert me and possibly call me names in the edit summary. When I ask you on your talk page not to do it, it has has no effect. So, like some other editors, I'm avoiding you somewhat, but I'm glad Orlady isn't. The idea that an article shouldn't have fill-in-the-blanks and question marks indicating speculation is eminently reasonable and I think virtually every editor on WP would agree with that. The way to avoid being bothered about that is not to do it. It's very simple to comment out incomplete sections until you have a chance to finish your research, if you don't want to work in userspace until the article is ready. Why not just do that to avoid the "needless drama"? Station1 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Station1, i replied at your talk page about the technical question of what dab pages are like Sutton House or not. But in general my use of "NRHP dab needing cleanup" over the last year, during which time i developed and completely cleaned up thousands of articles, has not been a problem for disambiguation or other editors. You might be questioning the approximately 30 left, out of 3000, that i am cleaning up now. I have repeatedly checked with WikiProject Disambiguation and there is no problem here. I don't particularly want you to try to make it a problem, but if you want to, please raise it within the "feedback on NRHP disambiguation" section at WikiProject Disambiguation that is open now. I'll try to chat with you about disambiguation stuff elsewhere. Thanks.

Overall, i may reply selectively here, but overall i don't want to spend my time debating here. --doncram (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not following you down that rabbit hole again. If you seriously believe there is no problem, after 5 or 6 editors in this section alone tell you there is, I can't help you. Once again, my point is that publishing draft pages is wrong. For another editor to politely suggest you not do so is reasonable (even if the expectation that it might have some beneficial effect might not be). For you to then complain about the editor making the suggestion is ridiculous. That's my opinion and that's all I have to say. Station1 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

your following me on Confederate Monument

Hi Orlady. Despite or really because i have publicly asked you to stop following me, you are following me and trying, i suppose, to improve upon my work. I don't mind others following me and improving on my work, in general, but as has been discussed, I have cumulatively found your doing so as tiresome and antagonistic.

In this edit with a somewhat deliberately rude edit summary i reverted your changes to the Confederate Monument disambiguation page.

It's not a bad idea to create a list-article / wp:SIA on Confederate Monuments, i grant that. I do question your timing. Also, you seem to be unaware of the list-article on Kentucky Confederate Monuments that User:Bedford created a long while back, in part using an MPS document that i originally pointed out to him. If a SIA is to be created, it should be at some list name like List of Confederate monuments, but you should probably draft that in your userspace. There is still a need for a disambiguation page, which can then be much reduced to cover explicitly just the few places named exactly "Confederate Monument" and provide link(s) to the list-article(s).

And, the version that you created, which i reverted from, was a mainspace article with no sources, in draft form. My article that is discussed above has two great sources, by contrast. Your hypocrisy in calling for me to do all my work in userspace, vs. your own choices here, is pretty amazing. --doncram (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Doncram, for not recognizing that the page you created and apparently own was a polished, final piece of work that I am ineligible to improve upon. I was not previously aware, for example, that "Tennessee and Virginia" is the name of a state, and that this state is properly listed at the beginning of the alphabet ahead of "Arkansas."

And as for why I might have an interest in a relatively new page called "Confederate Monument"... Didn't you just recently point out to me that I live in the former Confederacy? (I recall a comment in which you suggested that I was campaigning for the South to rise again.) Might that possibly induce me to take a look at a page focused on a topic specific to my region?

I saw that page, and I thought you had done good work. I tried to improve upon the page. Excuse me for existing.... --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the page further. The relationships between the many things called "Confederate Monument" are not merely similarity of name, but a commonality of history. It's still flagged as an SIA, but it's looking at lot more like a list article at this point. --Orlady (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Butting in on yet another case, Veterans Administration Hospital

In this edit, Orlady butts in on a disambiguation page just under discussion, mentioned at User talk:Station1, where i was just responding. I notice your edit because the article changed while i was looking at it, and returning to it.

I think your edit is technically bringing the dab page a bit further out of full compliance with Dab guidelines.

Do you want to make the case that my having created this dab, is so bad for Wikipedia? Your timing, anyhow, is wp:POINTY. --doncram (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your user talk page is not the only one that I have on my watchlist. I have also watchlisted Station1's talk page. That page was one of several that Station1 identified (correctly) as having been left in an very rough state. Considering that you hadn't touched the page in 3-1/2 weeks, how was I supposed to know that you claim ownership and would react that way when I tried to improve it?

Regarding content, this is a content dispute of sorts, not a question of formatting style for a disambiguation page. I happen to believe that that the primary meaning of "Veterans Administration Hospital" is a medical facility operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. You seen to believe that the primary meaning would be an old hospital building listed on the National Register. I will go start the discussion on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please continue the content discussion at Talk:Veterans_Administration_Hospital#Content_dispute_over_link_to_List_of_Veterans_Affairs_medical_facilities. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately misconstruing the facts to suggest impropriety on my part. I have previously accused you of deliberately misleading others and/or in some cases outright lying; this is another petty instance of one or the other it would appear.

As you very well know, i announced 3-1/2 weeks ago that i was stepping in to resolve long-running aggravation about new NRHP disambiguation pages, by simply creating all the several hundred missing/needed ones. I did so, creating several hundred, maybe 400-500 i am not sure. Of which many i could produce immediately in completely formatted form. The others, about 200, were identified by NRHP dab cleanup tag. To resolve most of these requires multiple edits on the given page and in corresponding NRHP list-articles and elsewhere; it is not simple. The count of remaining items in the NRHP dab cleanup category is displayed prominently at top right of NRHP wikiproject Talk page, and you are well aware of the To Do template which displays it. For the last several weeks the count has been declining rapidly as i addressed them.

Your intervention on the Veterans Administration Hospital dab page, seems like it might be to make some dumb point that you can add value to Wikipedia by following me around. Sure, you can take a different position from time to time, and obviously in many cases i am making decisions that could go a different way. It is not helping for you to second guess and find fault. By following on my heels and interrupting, you seem to be showing disrespect, primarily. I believe it is pretty clear that you can make useful editing contributions, in general, but it is causing drama and it is hurting me and you and other editors if you just follow me around.

About the technical point here, I don't think it will be productive to discuss it with you. There may be a gray area; you may be right or i may be right in our guess what is the best treatment that would be decided by a good consensus decision. But you and i are not going to pleasantly interact and constructively involve others in some good consensus decision. Your trying to force an issue seems to be more about your trying to prove yourself right, and me wrong, than anything else. It's tiresome. It seems perhaps like wp:Tendentious editing and wp:Wikihounding. --doncram (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to "What harassment is not" (on one of the policy pages you linked to)? --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Help me with a technical problem, please

I've just created Bone Mound II; however, for some reason, my browser won't let me go to any pages other than Wikimedia-related. Could you add an Elkman infobox to the article? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind; after a restart, my computer is working properly, so I've done it. Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you got that fixed. I've never used the Elkman generator. --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocks on the National Register

Your question about "blocks" induced me to research and write about a "block" that I visited and photographed a few weeks ago. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice little article -- and photos.

I've pretty well concluded that being called a "block" is not a defining characteristic suitable for categorization, but I'm still curious to see whether there's an architectural history expert who can provide some definitive info on the terminology. --Orlady (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That would definitely be welcome. I'm tending toward thinking the same thing — after all, I can't see any architectural difference between the Black-Elliott Block and the Clossman Hardware Store (almost next door to each other in downtown Zanesville, Ohio), but there could be something we're both missing. And thanks for the compliments. I had just gotten a camera tripod, and the trip to Lima was my first chance to try it out :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Another building that you might find interesting is Levering Hall in Mount Gilead, Ohio. Built as a two-part structure, the front part has the alternate name of "VanHorn Block", but the rear part is inscribed "Levering Hall". You can see both names at File:Levering Hall.jpg — look in the semicircular thing at the top of the left side for VanHorn, and under the pediment on the right side for Levering. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favor...

... and block me for the next month. If you need a reason, just say I'm being given a punitive block for the last time I yelled at Doncram, or a punitive block for various off-Wikipedia screwups I've made today.

I figure I've been screwing up enough things that a month-long block would be entirely deserved. It might make some people really happy, too. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mariano Werner stub

Thanks for adding sources to that. I was gonna get to it tomorrow, but really don't especially like doing it. Just trying to help out a little with the unsourced BLP's. I am curious, though, why you find that paltry two sentence stub worth saving, and yet hate very short NRHP stubs. In my opinion, a two sentence NRHP stub with an infobox and a good reference is far superior. Lvklock (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My answer is too long to write right now. Later... --Orlady (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of The National Association of Professional Women

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_April_29#The_National_Association_of_Professional_Women. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks at Bircham article

I'm just curious as to how the redlinks you restored are useful. Certainly if articles will be created to bluify them, they would be, but is that likely? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you click on those redlinks and then on "What links here," you will find that most of these titles have several incoming links -- and in many instances they are titles of articles that were deleted at one time or another. As a Wikipedia contributor who deals often with the topic of educational institutions that claim affiliation with associations that may or may not exist, I find these links enormously helpful. Furthermore, sometimes these links do turn into articles when someone finds appropriate content. (Sometimes it turns out that the deleted articles had good content, but were deleted due to the incorrect view that only reputable entities can be notable.) --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, I had not thought of their use as a backtracking mechanism, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Did I do something to offend you? Novaseminary (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I keep running into you (in articles about unaccredited colleges and at Independent Baptist, for example). In most of those places, you seem to be intent on deleting content. I can't figure out why you are so determined to remove the work of other contributors.

While we are on the subject, why did you consider it necessary to remove the list of colleges from Independent Baptist, create List of Independent Fundamental Baptist educational institutions as a stand-alone list article, and delete the redlinks from that list? Many of your edits give me the impression of being the work of someone who has a POV to push. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As for he unaccredited colleges, I think my edits to Educational accreditation and related pages indicate that I do not have a POV and, in fact, have worked to keep POV-fake-accreditation text out of WP. It was my desire to remove unsourced, POV edits that lead me to the articles at which we have intersected. As for the Independent Baptist, I removed a good deal of unsourced material purely because it was dubious and unsourced or violated WP:UNDUE. You added it back without sourcing it. Regardless, I split the list of schools because the list was taking up a huge chunk of the article (and there is a guideline in favor of that, but it escapes me right now). I pasted it exactly as it was into a new article as a list article. Then I added a lead and removed the non-sourced listings without a WP article. Feel free to add them back if you plan to create articles for them. You've now twiced accused me of pushing a POV, but per an edit history of your's you "don't know what the POV is." Isn't that called being neutral? I think you think I am a booster of some unaccredited schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the guidance favoring stand-alone instead of embedded lists in these circumstances. Per Wikipedia:Embedded_lists#Lists_versus_prose: "Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries." In addition, the list of schools is problematic--especially as an embedded list--because by definition (at least as the article is written), Indepedent Fundamental Baptist schools or churches are not under a common structure. Novaseminary (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

One other quick thought. These comments of yours from the Independent Baptist talk page seem to highlight the very problems I tried to remedy on that article. And you apparently agreed with most of my edits to that page or at least left them; really all but the KJ-only and education sections (which were the sections I actually paired down more because of the WP:UNDUE and unsourced concerns than for POV reasons). You called the problems nearly three years ago. I suspect both of us really dislike unsourced POV and you mistook my disdain of the same as my trying to insert the reverse POV. No hard feelings. But before alleging POV where you don't even "know what the POV is," maybe take a closer look at editing patterns. I've removed similar text from academic, religious, musical, media, and military articles. I try to only add well sourced, neutral (if sometimes boring and plain) text. You might disagree with my edits, but I would hope we could agree that the only POV I am pushing is strict adherence to WP policies and guidelines even if we don't agree on exactly what that means. Novaseminary (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Down by the old mill stream

A couple of related new ones have swum into my view: Management Institute of Canada, and its parent, Delta International University of New Orleans. Students of MIC get their diploma from DIU, which in turn claims accreditation from something called the International Association of Distance Learning, and to be seeking "State Accreditation" in Louisiana. Help me, oh golden mistress of the diploma-mill industry! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Is this the unknown entity International Association for Distance Learning or are two different names being used by different unknown entities? --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in the discourse taking place now at User talk:Finitude2222. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that this latest incarnation has been blocked. I think it might be a good idea to semi-protect those two articles. Ideally, articles like those (i.e., with a high level of attractiveness for self-interested SPAs, but little to interest the rest of us) would be enrolled in "pending changes". --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Elim Bible Institute

I have nominated Elim Bible Institute, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elim Bible Institute (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. 2 says you, says two 15:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about the Huffman and TallMagic accounts

I just noticed that, in addition to continuing his battle with Derek Smart in Smart's BLP, both accounts were very active in the related Warren National University (WNU) article. The problems with that I just detailed here. The WNU article's history shows that you were also heavily involved in editing that article at the same time. Were you unaware that Huffman/TallMagic was editing that article apparently as part of a long-running, off-wiki feud between himself and Derek Smart? Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment page cited. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Many thanks for your work involving state legislators-RFD (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been very encouraging and helpful with the various state legislators-Thank you again-RFD (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Destroyed and Formerly on the NRHP

I agree with you that the category names aren't the best; my Destroyed category was intentionally patterned after the name of Former. What would you think of proposing a move to "Formerly on the National Register of Historic Places"? Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a brilliant suggestion, Nyttend. Go for it! --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Before I go for it, do you have any suggestions for a destroyed category? "Destroyed and on the National Register of Historic Places" doesn't sound good to me, and I can't think of anything else. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable persons sections

Be sure to check the discussion on the Wikiproject Tennessee talk page when you get a chance. Bms4880 (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Talk:Nicknames of Portland, Oregon.
Message added 04:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

tedder (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Westwood College

My attention drawn by a new AfD on some spinoff articles, I've taken light trimming scissors to the article for Westwood College. But I suspect that this article would benefit from the full Orlady treatment, should you be so inclined. Thanks.--Best, Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've spent a little bit of time on the article (more time is needed) and I commented at the AfD. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sup Girl?

How you doin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurkmolsner (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens

[13] I think the full-protection was a misclick? Courcelles (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. You were fixing it while I was flapping my jaws here. Courcelles (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!

Orlady - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Columbus University

I have nominated Columbus University, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbus University. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. 2 says you, says two 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Knoxville neighborhoods

We may need your guidance at Template_talk:Knoxneighborhoods, if you get a chance. The template, based on city-data.com, is a mess. Bms4880 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Knoxville and Knox Metro confusion

After reading the Knoxville article, I'm not seeing too much confusion between Knoxville and Knoxville Metro Area, except in some suggestions on the talk page. The "Nearby communities" section is a bit subjective, though. Bms4880 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The nearby communities section has been replaced. That's much better. Now when someone tries to sneak Morristown or Newport into this section, we can objectively revert it. Feel free to modify as you see fit.

The Economy section is just bad and in need of expansion, so I'm not going to fool with it at the moment. As for the Smokies, the team's article says they're based in the Knoxville Metropolitan Area, but from what I understand, Kodak (where the team's front office is located) is in the Sevierville Micropolitan Area. Bms4880 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

3O?

I believe we both desire to make the List of bow tie wearers a better article. It's clear we have different views on what sources are suitable. Would you be open to requesting a third opinion?--~TPW 00:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Question??

Is there a way to do notes on a page for research where they only show up in edit???--Happypixie (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Friendly hello

We worked together at ODP a while back. Nice seeing you in an edit log again! --Pnm (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the fine addition to List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. --Lexein (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dumb Question I am sure

What are the (+) and (-) after are names in the contributions for??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypixie (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any pluses or minuses on the contributions page, but in the watchlist there are "+" and "-" entries that indicate the net change of an page's length (in bytes) as a result of a specific edit. For example, "(+21)" means that the edit increased the page length by 21 bytes and "(-610)" means that the edit reduced the page by a total of 610 bytes. --Orlady (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks that was it just wonder--Happypixie (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Merge

I add a little something to East Rock Park page and noticed that the East Rock page is almost the same should they be merged?? I do not feel my judgment is at a point where I could even think of making a call like that. I have this page on my watchlist Thanks. --Happypixie (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

one is the geographic and one is the park itself so just not sure--Happypixie (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The park and the ridge are not the same thing, so they have separate articles. This was done deliberately. They should not be merged. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you that is why I asked, you are a wonderful help! I will get the hang of it :) --Happypixie (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Help needed for a potential new article

Dear Orlady, Will you pls help me to make an article on "Medical College for Women and Hospital", the first medical college for women in Bangladesh. I need some guideline before I do that.Shoovrow (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Temple Israel

Hi Orlady. So, are you recommending deleting the older history of Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and moving it to Talk:Temple Israel? If so, would you do that, or should I? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you copied the material to the Talk: page. I guess that works too. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You added that comment while I was typing. As you have seen, I decided to copy that history to Talk:Temple Israel. I didn't see any harm in having it appear in both places -- and it may be helpful to keep it in both places, at least until the dust settles. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

hey what's going on, again

Orlady, there is nothing appropriate about you following me to the "Temple Israel" article, and butting in to revert an edit of mine, and yourself closing the Requested Move discussion that was ongoing. You have no business following me and doing that. What i had done was notice an apparently inappropriate move of a list-article in lieu of a split-out of one particular place listed on it, and I opened a proper process to get other opinions in a Requested Move. Given your previous history with me, you should not be following me around and interfering. There is no way you are a disinterested administrator. This is regarding what is currently located at Talk:Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)#Requested move. I am unsure what to do now, whether to open a new requested move or to un-close that, or ask for others' assistance one way or another. --doncram (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, you are welcome to ask for a review of my action there. For what it's worth, I think I was protecting you from making a fool of yourself. My only regret is that I was called away from my computer after I made the first edit to those articles, so I didn't get to close the move discussion 1-1/2 hours earlier. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, you proposed reversing a perfectly reasonable set of moves, and no-one agreed with you. You then apparently decided to undo the move yourself, not waiting for the outcome of the Move Request, which made the article ridiculous, and in the process, removed a great deal of valuable information from the Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) article. The Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma) article has now been mostly re-written, with significantly more information, many more reliable sources. It's now three or four times the size of that stubby paragraph that existed in the Temple Israel article (and which was the only valuable piece of the article anyway); please stop damaging Wikipedia by removing or over-writing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I had no intent to lose a single iota of what you've developed in the Tulsa article. It just should be in a separate article from the list-article / SIA on Temple Israel, which should have its own edit history and Talk page and its history intact. It's not appropriate to wipe out a list-article that has existed since 2007, with no deletion proposal. The Requested Move would have eventually worked to bring in uninvolved editors, and this would have been resolved. I've asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Temple Israel. Your concern is, i believe, that the new article should be at "Temple Israel (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" and that can be done without usurping the list-article and its history. --doncram (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Cain Fulling Mill and Elias Glover Woolen Mill Archeological Site

Don't know if you've noticed, but both Doncram and Polaron have broken 3RR here; I've decided that full protection for 24 hours would be more useful and less dramatic than blocking both. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. It's not exactly an important article... --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and .....

Dear Orlady, I am not in a good position with the institute, therefore having a hard time collecting informations on it. Sikder Women's Medical College is another institution for the same purpose, but that is a limited company. I shall be very grateful if you look at it time to time so that you can monitor my edits and suggest. Thanks again.Shoovrow (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cedar Hill edit

hi me again, :) Sorry :) ok you deleted a section from Cedar Hill (new Haven) stating

(Early settlement: clarified sourcing; info is not on page 10 of the print book (no text on page 10); removed unsourced hearsay and unsourced trivia about 17th -century will)

I may have put the wrong ref...this is what should of been there http://www.archive.org/stream/atwaterhistoryge04atwa#page/12/mode/2up/search/land pages 10-13 which gives the description at the bottom of page 12 but felt that the few pages where relevant for the entire ref. Now I don't want to put it back up if this is still wrong. One thing I am kind of starting to see as I research is a whole larger part of New Haven may be Cedar Hill than the part that are clearly documented. Until I can find real proof of that I will keep it at what I can document Thanks --Happypixie (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting -- and disconcerting. The pagination in your link does not match the pagination of the image of the published book at http://ia360620.us.archive.org/3/items/atwaterhistoryge02atwa/atwaterhistoryge02atwa.pdf .

Regardless of the pagination of the source, though, the details of the will of this man who died in 1692 are trivia that do not belong in an encyclopedia. (See WP:NOT.)

As for the boundaries of "Cedar Hill," I think it's best to keep the article focused on the modern neighborhood. Its history can include the fact (if verified by sources) that the name used to refer to a larger area, but don't try to treat those other areas as part of the neighborhood. --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again! oh and the cedar are the right ones. In fact a group I work with URI are trying to replaced them a few every year :) They forestry school at yale confirmed it--Happypixie (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your assistance

Can you review the DLR Group listing and offer your opinion as to if it has been revised correctly? Also, I beleive a disgruntled former employee is repeatidly vandalizing the listing. How can that be addressed?

Flatlanderks (talk)Flatlanderks —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

What is process for deleting the banner at the DLR Group page? Or, can you please provide direction as to how to make it more neutral? IS it simply adding more references? I am learning here and trying to follow process. The models I followed include Gensler, HKS, HOK, and SOM. This page appears to be at least on par with those.

Flatlanderks (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 6/22/10

Doncram, set lists, disambig pages

Hi Orlady,

Doncram is attempting to convert the disambiguation page to a "set list" again. If you could give your thoughts here: Talk:Temple Israel#Requested move 2 and disambiguation vs. set-index-article, I'd appreciate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

New Issue

Dear Orlady, I do not know how ethical it might be to ask you, but a help would be very nice for me. I made an article named "Death and Adjustment Hypotheses" at wiki. First it was truly of low quality and got deleted. When again I tried to reconstruct it, it had lack of references and got finally deleted by the user named King of Hearts. Later, I collected more reliable references and let him know that I am going to recreate it. He was not in support of it or against it either. But JzG deleted it with the reason that it was a deleted article, and nothing else. Later I've been requesting him to let me know what reference seemed inadequate or let me have the deleted article to see it for correction but I got no reply. He is sick a bit now, I know. Can you guide me in this issue, pls! I feel truly helpless as I lost the last copy of the article with my desktop computer. I want to proceed with the article but with due part that should not hamper wiki, and I need someone really expert with me.Shoovrow (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Leander Clark College

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

NRHP Infobox

Hey, could you copy the NRHP sandbox over to the template itself again? Sorry, but I found an error dealing with the handling of GA, WA, and DC categories (they all have non-standard cats – Category:Historic districts in Washington (U.S. state) as opposed to Category:Historic districts in Washington for example). This is causing some articles to be placed in redlinked categories based on non-standard locmapin parameters. See Category:Historic districts in USA Georgia for example. A simple #switch parser fixed the problem, and as soon as it's installed, these red categories will be wiped out. Thanks, and sorry I didn't catch this on the initial (two) edit(s). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Your AfD close for List of renamed Indian public places

Thanks for your reasonable close on the AfD for List of renamed Indian public places, and for moving the page to the location determined by consensus. A few hours after you closed the AfD, Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) moved the page again, this time to List of renamed places in India (an alternate rewording of his original move). A very short and non-unanimous discussion had just started on the talk page, and Colonel Warden apparently claims that consensus was established there for his move. I have already left comments on his talk page and in the AfD comments about how his first move was disruptive, so he is fully aware that some editors find his actions disruptive. It is purposeful disruption to move the page again a few hours after an admin reverted his last move. Anyway, can you take a look at the situation and move the page back to List of renamed Indian cities and states if you feel that would be appropriate? I'm on my way out the door and don't have time to start an ANI thread, but I'll do so later if need be. Thanks. SnottyWong ^speak 23:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I restored the article name, and I move-protected the article to quell the move-warring. The current name might not be perfect, but this continual moving is disruptive. --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. SnottyWong ^chatter 06:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither propaganda nor advertising at Wikipedia, Can we agree ?

Dear Fellow; I love wikipedia and its positive influence. But we need to be careful to not use wikipedia as advertising nor propaganda.

Wikipedia must provide information, there are many ways to provide information as you know. In the case of The University of Northern Virginia; Why should we say that the university does not have any accreditation?!! They have accreditation and it is an international one , we can simply say they have these accreditation and certifications.

As you see, one creates negativity and propaganda and one delivers information only.

Please take this into consideration.

Thank you LD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leone-deluca (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Wikipedia should not describe the University of Northern Virginia as unaccredited, because the university's website states that it's accredited by the "American Council of University Accreditation". Not only is there no evidence that this entity is recognized as an accreditor, but I even can't find any evidence that it exists. (The only ghits on its name are to UNVA webpages, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia mirrors.)

Sorry, no dice!!! We can't agree!!!

In case you aren't aware of it, I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Project On Government Oversight

I see you've taken a bit of interest in this article. I'd like your advice. The organization POGO is notable, and has a long history of citation in news articles and other RS. But the article has horrific linkspam. My 7-day warning of pruning seems to have produced a small number of sources, but none for the vast ocean of links to the POGO website. The one editor who |declared to be with POGO has gone radio silent, and User:Dfreegov hasn't declared, but has spent their career inserting POGO-related content in articles. Thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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

08:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A humble request

Hi Orlady,

I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned input over these past many months on the Family Foundation School article. You may already be aware of this; but in the event you're not, I'm writing to alert you that the other neutral editor on the article (User:Sinneed), has evidently elected to WP:Vanish. I'm concerned that this may open the floodgates to the school's detractors running away with the article and landing us back where we were before you and he joined the article about 19 months ago.

I'd be grateful if you could keep this on your watchlist, and step in if things look to be getting out of hand (likewise keep me in line, if I step beyond the bounds of good editing).

Many thanks, again!

- Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Leander Clark-

The article refer to him as a representative. If he was in the Iowa Senate, Clark would had been refer to a senator. Also he was a county judge and that would had been a constitutional office of the State of Iowa. I hope you are doing well. I have been busy with adding articles of members of the Wisconsin Legislature, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, some Roman Catholic bishops-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another link [14] that also mention Leander Clark served in the Iowa House of Representatives 2 different times. I will try to add it on as a citation. I hope you are well-Many thanksRFD (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note-this is taken care of-Thanks-RFD (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim Hixson

You might be interested in this article about Kim Hixson. He was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee and went to school there. He moved to Whitewater, Wisconsin and taught at UW-Whitewater. He was elected to the Whitewater Common Council and then was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly. I hope you are doing well-Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

State Legislature databases

There are 3 articles: Davis Hanson Waite, Elijah Steele, and William Worrall Mayo that you might be interested in. All three served in their state legislatures and the articles have references connected to databases about past legislators. I am not sure if Tennessee or the Tennessee General Assembly has such a database also. If they do, please let myself know. Also Missouri&Iowa has databases about their past legislators also. Again I hope you are doing well. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I e-mailed an official of the Tennessee General Assembly once, and was told that nobody had ever compiled one, hard-copy or online. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks-you can also added Connecticut to the list. In Wisconsin the Legislative Research Bureau has complied a database as to who served in the Wisconsin Legislature. This was put out in 1999. More recently, there was a feature article about the Wisconsin Legislature in one of the most recent Wisconsin Blue Books and that has an updated list. Also the Bluebooks go back to the 1850s and you can browsed through them. Many thanks Orangemike for checking out the Tennessee General Assembly-Thank you Orlady-RFD (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising to me (as a transplant to Tennessee) that there is no master list of historical Tennessee state legislators. The closest thing to a good source on past legislators probably would be a state archive of old editions of the Tennessee Blue Book. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, sunuvagun! The Tennessee House has online lists going back to the 19th century at http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/ . The Senate also has archives, at http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/archives/ , but they only cover the last few sessions. --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Illinois has their bluebooks on the internet-it is very similiar to Wisconsin-their bluebooks are also on the computer. Makes it easier to hunt for members of their state legislatures and other major offices. As always I hope you are well-many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

I already watch Calamitybrook's talk page and have now added the center to my watchlist. I think it is possible that Calamitybrook may have some COI issues with that article, perhaps as a (former?) employee? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Calamitybrook has stated categorically on my talk page that he has no connection to the center, so I will WP:AGF. I am off to make a comment on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For somebody with no connection to the place, he sure has formed a strong distaste for it. At one time (probably somewhere in the talk page archives), he said that he formerly lived close by. That may explain the negative attitude. --Orlady (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you've expressed an interest in my personal life, will say that I lived in the region from 1970 to 1973. Kripalu arrived in 1983. What might that explain?

I've added most of the existing sources on article's current list. Some are flattering, some unflattering, & some are indifferent. Some have been removed with what I believe is inadequate justification.

This whole COI thing, with its implications of personal malfeasance and its reasoning akin to that of a witch-hunt, I do find rather dubious.

I'd actually prefer not have my person discussed at all; that discussion of Kripalu article be confined to its talk page, & also that individual editors not be personally & semi-privately solicited for contribution to article in question. Just my preference.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

It seems to me the best way to go regarding this article is to file an RfC as per WP:RFC and maybe leave messages relating to it on the talk pages of the WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Massachusetts, and any project which might relate to urban development, like water sources in general, like maybe WikiProject Environment. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All of my experience with Calamitybrook is that he takes a position and does not seem to ever change his mind, regardless. I keep hoping he will see what others are saying. I agree and RfC may be the way to go, if for no other rason than it may avoid his "canvassing" fears. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not had good experience with RFC -- the RFCs I've been involved with generally went nowhere. Regardless, there is a history of the Kripalu Center topic (including but not limited to the drinking water issue) being raised at noticeboards without getting much (if any) attention, and without leading to productive results. In addition to the February 2009 peer review (whose results Calamitybrook apparently didn't like), I found the following:

• Editor assistance requests March 2009
• NPOV noticeboard November 2009
• COI noticeboard December 2009 - That noticeboard discussion appeared to be productive, but the editing of the article and the behavior at the talk page did not actually change as a result.
• Wikiquette alerts January 2010
• Wikiquette alerts February 2010
• ANI February 2010

The one time that a noticeboard request seems to have resulted in feedback that truly resolved an issue is this RSN query from December 2009. I don't believe that another 15 minutes of noticeboard-type attention from another previously uninvolved editor (or two) is likely to change Calamitybrook's behavior, which is essentially to insist that he gets to write the article according to his own liking (except for the fact that he insists on someone else repairing his reference citations because he prefers not to learn to do that) unless others engage in continuous unproductive discussion with him. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not discuss this on relevant talk page? --"Calamity Brook"

71.235.237.175 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Because such comments do not meet WP:TPG, and it surprises me that you don't know that. Perhaps not knowing what material is and is not appropriate for article talk pages is part of the problem, and perhaps one of the reasons for such matters regarding your behavior being raised so often? But I do think that maybe having this individual be advised from other parties new to him, whom he perhaps cannot rush to dismiss in the somewhat knee-jerk response he has to the indications of his less-than-acceptable behavior, might be one of tne few ways to convey to him that his making comments which are completely unacceptable as per WP:TPG and other policies and guidelines and persisting in such behavior is one of the reasons he seems to have so much trouble working with others. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Masonic Buildings citation formatting

So that I don't do a whole page of citations incorrectly (and have to redo them yet again)... I have changed the citations for the three buildings in Arizona along the lines you suggested... Please check them out and let me know (on the article talk page) if they pass muster with you. If so I will continue down through the list. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Masonic buildings comment

Thanks for participating.

We are setting aside the scope issue for the moment, because finding valid sources will help to solve that. For example, whatever building it is in CT that's on the list, it was a "Masonic Temple" but went into NRHP as a synagogue because that's what it became. So it is likely that the scope and purpose of the list will change once we figure out where the sources are and what key questions develop as a result. Therefore, I see this sourcing issue as fundamental to the scope question. With no sources, it doesn't really much matter how anything is defined, because it's not verifiable. Step two is defining scope and purpose, and we will get to that.

Also, can you perhaps give me a stronger conclusion that what you have? This process is not quite an RFC - stating that you agree with doncram's statement doesn't really indicate to me which side you're leaning on (if at all), because you haven't addressed Blueboar's statement. What the result is doesn't matter to me, but we need definitive statements or we're never going to get past this with a solid conclusion that we can point to in the future. MSJapan (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not old discussion

Orlady, consumer protection may be a mask for the university or a true activity. But it is simply a fact for us. Why should we take it as more than that? Is it any enmity game? I am sorry that I screw it up with you but I simply do not understand why a fact shall be prevented from appearing, we are not here to judge possibilities. Can't you just clearly and simply mention it? Pls reply. This is new from my part.Shoovrow (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like I truly engaged myself in edit war and I could clarify it by discussion. I am sorry for that. I shall be glad if you still come forward to help me.Shoovrow (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jersey College for Girls

Thanks for declining the speedy--I didn't want to do that myself since I had essentially written all the content. You also deleted the link to the the AfD--was that accidental? (I've now voted keep, but others certainly have the right to disagree.) Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Harry T. Burn

Here is another article you might find interesting: Harry T. Burn. He served in both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly. He cast the deciding vote that ratified the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution because his mother asked him to. I worked on this article. The problem with the article was that there was a list of newspaper articles at the end of the article and no citations. I kept the list and added the citations. I hope you are doing well-Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about Harry Burn. I'm the one who added information about him to the 19th Amendment article. I appreciate your interest in suggesting new projects for me, but I'm afraid I really don't have the time and interest to pursue these things. --Orlady (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi Orlady, would you be interested in copyediting Albany, New York for me? I'm going to bring it to peer review and hope to get it to FA reasonably soon. Note that the Nightlife and Artistic Community sections are still a work in progress, just so you know. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. upstateNYer 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John W. Shumaker

Hello! Your submission of John W. Shumaker at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pity the Fool

Dear Orlady

I put up a page called 'Pity the Fool' about 3 to 4 months back, the admins requested the page for speedy deletion because the page had no evidence that the band is notable according to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please see my recent comment, I had to wait for a new Ptf song to be released and now it is on the charts, please can you assist me in getting the page up again. Thank you

Kind regards Daniel RaubenheimerDanielptf (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You've made this request elsewhere[15][16][17] and signed yourself Daniel Raubenheimer. That's a member of the band to which you're referring. If you're him, you shouldn't be involved in creating the article, 'cause it's conflict of interest, dude. Just sayin'. Also, new comments go at the bottom of a talk page, just so's you know. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

David_Allen_(game_designer)

Orlady, I notice that you made some edits in the David_Allen_(game_designer) article recently. An editor that is apparently another Derek Smart surrogate [18] has edited David_Allen_(game_designer) with what I consider problematic edits. Some background information is that Mr. Smart is currently involved in a civil suit with Mr. Allen. The David Allen article appears to me to contain multiple violations of policy. Derek Smart surrogates have been problematic in the past, something near a half dozen accounts banned since the ArbCom case. [19] I suggest that semi-protecting the David Allen article may be considered. I would really appreciate attention to this matter. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Bill Huffman (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the article after seeing your message on Hipocrite's talk page. I flagged that last edit by Wildcar999 as having "failed verification" and deleted it just now because I could not find support for the defamatory statements there. I don't know enough about the subject matter to contribute productively, however, and I don't think the article is a good candidate for protection because it seldom gets edited. --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Perhaps it should be nominated for deletion but my main concern was the defamatory statements and you have removed them. Thank you again, Bill Huffman (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[20] Orlady, your help in ensuring that this on-wiki pursuit of an apparent off-wiki feud does not continue is appreciated, at least by me. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John W. Shumaker

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this hook's DYK appearance was essentially in the middle of night in Tennessee and Kentucky (2 am to 8 am Eastern time; 1 am to 7 am Central), it will be interesting to see how much attention it got. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Alexander Mabry, Jr.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)