User talk:Orlady/Archive 20

Could you do a DYK for Nancy Chang?

Hi! I see you're pretty active in reviewing DYKs. We've got one for Nancy Chang that I believe will check out okay, with two possible hooks, but we need someone that hasn't worked on it to give it a final review. Would you be willing? Thanks so much, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Just be patient! It's still a fairly recent nomination; it will get reviewed sooner or later. I've been mainly focusing on trying to deal with older nominations that have been problematic. --Orlady (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	While on recent changes patrol, I ran across your messages to Jesus Lover0000. I found your patience, thoroughness, and friendliness to be an exemplary way to help a new user. In recognition of these outstanding contributions to Wikipedia I hereby award you the Barnstar of Diplomacy. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Jesus Lover0000's amiability in response to talk-page comments makes it easier to continue the effort. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bruno Möhring

Orlady, since your ALT4 was not accepted, I was wondering whether you could review the ALT5 that was subsequently proposed by Hawkeye7 in its place. The hook was self-approved by Hawkeye7, but I have reversed that approval since it is explicitly against the rules. The nomination's been dragging on, though, and I was hoping you could see whether the new ALT is any good and the nomination truly ready for approval. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Philadelphia Distilling

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sister Gargi

Orlady (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Archived copy --Tito☸Dutta 00:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI

I just blocked two editors, and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billsilver1984. Maybe you want to weigh in, as you have been active in reverting these editors as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsticking old DYK noms

Orlady, I'm asking you and Crisco 1492 (who's getting the same list) to take a look at some of the oldest DYK nominations, if you have time: the ones that seem to be badly mired. If either of you can unstick any them, that would be great. They are:

• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Business tourism: this one got stuck when there was disagreement as to whether this was really different from business travel, and now there's a new disagreement over whether it should be closed for inaction. I'm sure one of you would know what needs to be done.
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Kitty: There have been issues with the BBC site and close paraphrasing surrounding it. Is it finally okay?
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamburg Steak: should this be a separate article, or folded into "hamburger"? (It does seem to be different from Salisbury steak, and an earlier invention besides.)
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh: the article had been quite unstable, but it seems to have calmed down (no edits at all in the past 40 hours, the RfC closed on July 3). The big problem is the hook: Faizan and Zayeem have deadlocked over it, and we have mutually unacceptable original (Faizan) and ALT1 (Zayeem) versions. I suggested that a new ALT2 be proposed, but neither seems willing, wanting it to be from a neutral party. Can either of you step in and propose one? Please?
• June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Snowden: still getting dozens of edits a day (very unstable) nearly four weeks after creation. Should it be closed, or ought we to keep waiting?
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mink industry in Denmark: after several go-rounds, Nikkimaria seems to think that this needs a thorough ref check, see User talk:Nikkimaria#Template:Did you know nominations/Mink industry in Denmark redux squared. Thoughts?
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wennergren: the hook is about Wennergren's son rather than him. Mentoz86 thinks that's a problem. Care to chime in with a new hook or another thought now that over two weeks have passed?

Thank you both very much, and I apologize that there are so many. These need a more experienced touch than I have. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Rose Lambert DYK

I removed both refs. Please check it out. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ive replied to your concerns raised at the DYK nomination page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rose Lambert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Hadjin and the Armenian Massacres''. Fleming H. Revell Company. Full text available online from [[http://armenianhouse.org/lambert/hadjin/title.html Armenia House] or [http://books.google.com/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Claude Houghton

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Amrut Distilleries

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Amrut (whisky)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mink industry in Denmark

Orlady, the article has been given a series of edits by Rosiestep after your review that highlighted its deficiencies. I was wondering whether you would be willing to go back and give it another going over. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Barony_of_Chalandritsa.
Message added 07:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 07:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Just popping by to say thank you for helping me with the formatting of the DYK nomination of Elisabet Höglund. Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mink industry in Denmark

Still problematic?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Banned user reverted on Glen Island Park

I remember seeing something like this before. Who is the user? Did I ask you about this previously? BusterD (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Ruins of Holyrood Chapel

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Do you think there should be a NRHP for this? If so, you are the resident Coal town guy (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CTG! I don't think you'll get anything near unanimous agreement that I deserve this one, though. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Enough is enough. There's a line and you've crossed it. None of us want to contribute to DYK with people like you around. I understand your desire to improve the quality of DYK but you stopped being constructive the moment you came up with your "flabbergasted", implying we only care about our DYK credit. Rosie bent over backwards to address your concerns which has since practically removed half of the article. I haven't spoken up until now because I always assumed good faith in you and respected you and your input but you've just blown that by what you said. I'm not willing to go to the lengths that you expect for perfection. it's DYK not FA, and quite frankly none of our readers truly care about most of the issues you identify. You are most welcome to point out errors in our work by contacting any one of us, we do care about accuracy, but please stay away from our DYK noms. It completely kills any enjoyment in producing articles having to answer up to you. If I see you so much as breathe in one of our DYK nominations again I'm going to withdraw it the moment you start commenting, and whatever you think about our articles, we produce the widest and arguably most interesting range of articles than anybody else on wikipedia and DYK would be a poorer place without our range of work. If you have a problem with an article you fix it. Getting a single DYK is just not worth the grovelling; we don't owe you or wikipedia anything. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is timely. I had been considering declaring that I would no longer contribute to review of DYK noms by your "group" (meaning the loose consortium of Dr. Blofeld, Rosiestep, and Nvvchar) due to my growing concern about article quality. I don't think that such a declaration on my part would be to your benefit, nor to the benefit of the articles you contribute.

Note: If I refrain from reviewing your articles, I will continue to reserve the right to veto another user's approval of a hook if I see issues (for example, when I am considering moving the hook to a prep area or the queues). --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that I've long believed DYK needs reform and that I am fully aware that many articles going through are not high quality articles. For quite some time now I've been more motivated to get important articles up to GA status like Marrakesh and Paris, and the thought of several million people reading the work a year in my opinion is a far greater motivator for me than the 1,500 or so which might read one of our DYKs for a few hours. I'm usually not even online when they're shown anyway. But the point of DYK for me is not to produce work of real quality, or having interesting hooks (let's face it most are dull as dishwater which nobody cares about) but to display the breadth of work editors are working on. I like having a bank of diverse articles I can look back over and I enjoy working with Rosie and Nvv and the others and the spirit of collaboration. That's what wikipedia and DYK should be about, a mechanism to encourage editors to improve and write new articles and to display what editors can achieve together and the diversity of interests.

I agree that preferably our articles should be as accurate and well-written as possible and at times we do rather rush our DYK noms but a lot of that has to do with the petty rules including the 5-day deadline and the 5x expansion which causes most of the problems you see. I can't blame you for wanting to improve a flawed process which in turn often produced flawed articles. But when it starts to grate and seem like you're not helping in good faith to solve the problems and promote the articles but would seemingly rather complain about them and continue to berate the writers for their apparent shoddy editing which stalls nominations for absurdly long periods I think it makes what is supposed to be enjoyable quite the opposite. But the reality is I could go through even the best DYK noms and find a great number of issues and stall them, but it doesn't usually happen and they go through and few except those hypersensitive about the main page quality really care. Honestly we don't mind constructive criticism which results in identification of errors and better articles as a result. But there is a difference between constructive criticism and seemingly intentional pickiness and whatever we do to try to improve the situation just doesn't seem to meet your approval. It's very frustrating, especially when you insult the editors it doesn't come across in the spirit of cooperation I'd like to see. That's why I've chosen to speak up about it. But it's not as if you're the only one. There's quite a few editors who give DYK contributors a really hard time over the quality of their work.

What it comes down to, an argument also given by Sandy Georgia, Tony and many others is that only the very highest quality work should be displayed on the front page. And they're right. The front page of wikipedia should ideally display only the best quality work. But as long as DYK exists and only accepts basic expansions, I don't think you can really improve the situation. We both know that there are scores of articles going through DYK every day which are far from ideal and if you really scrutinize them they likely have a lot of sourcing and content flaws, but DYK has never been about showcasing the best work has it. Until DYK is scrapped entirely and replaced with something which is quality centred like FA, GA or whatever then expecting similar standards to FA just isn't in the right context. What we need is reform, and I'd be the first to support a change. I believe DYK is a good mechanism to showcase the diversity of work but I'd support a change in the hook format, scrapping of the petty rules, introduce schemes to raise the quality by offering competitions for DYK contributor to produce best DYK of the week/month etc. Picking on random articles and making an example of them which I see you and Sandy do quite a bit I don't think is really going to change anything long term, rather it will irk a lot of people off and discourage them to contribute to DYK, not the answer in my opinion. Take care. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

[EC -- drafted before reading your last paragraph] Well, in spite of the 5-day rule, many DYK contributors manage to have their articles in pretty good condition before they nominate them at DYK -- often by creating them in user space and not moving them to main space until they are reasonably solid start-level articles. Additionally, article improvement might not be the purpose of DYK, but a lot of articles get improved after they are posted on the nominations page. It's common for a reviewer to see issues that the creators and nominators overlooked, and it's perfectly all right to fix those issues during the review process. That shouldn't surprise you. I know that Rosiestep, in particular, has fixed a lot of articles at this stage of the process.

FWIW, I follow two main routes in my review of DYK noms. Both of these lead me to look at more than my share of noms with problems. Lately I've seen several of your noms via one or the other of these routes:

1. I often focus on noms that have been on the noms page for a long time due to unresolved problems. My goal is to resolve problems, not create new problems. This often means rolling up my sleeves to improve articles; I've also written a lot of new hooks to get noms moved forward.

2. When I'm adding hooks to a prep set or reviewing a prep set before sending it to the queue, I review the prior review to satisfy myself that the hook and article are ready for main-page exposure at DYK. If I decide the hook isn't ready, I usually add a note about the problem, but don't try to fix the issue right then because I'm in a hurry to deal with the prep set.y --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to a discussion on someone's talk page that doesn't involve me, but this is ridiculous. Orlady's DYK reviews are fine and she even helps improve articles when she doesn't have to such as with C/O Sir. Orlady is right about the fact that your group can work on articles in user space and that there are additional opportunities during the review process. You are complaining about reviewers only wanting quality DYK articles, but you should want the articles to be high quality as the creator. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

SL93, please don't lecture me on quality. P-lease. Orlady has a point about working on articles in user space. but I've never done that. There is a difference between constructive criticism and wanting to improve quality and help editors improve compared to somebody like Orlady who often seems to intentionally stall DYKs and seems to relish continuing to stall them and pick holes in them despite frantic editing to improve them. If she really wanted our articles to go through she'd edit the articles herself and fix the issues which she believes the editors still have not addressed, given that we really didn't understand what she was really complaining about. There is a certain group of reviewers on here who seem to do all they can to prevent articles going through, that isn't in good spirit, concerned about quality or not. Take your Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Hotel (Sioux City, Iowa) for instance. I'd have made the necessary edits needed to approve it straight off rather than cause you the trouble, see how it has been unnecessarily stalled and how irritating it gets? Whatever you're feeling over the way your nomination has been handled, judging by your comments to the reviewer, well that's how I feel on a lot of the DYKs I put through. I could argue that Cbl62 "just wants to help improve the article" in the same way. Really? Doesn't look like it to me. If he really wanted to help you he'd have made that slight tweak and approved the original. Same applies with Orlady and the articles. My point above all is that reviewers should work with editors in good faith to improve an article which there have problems with not against them and treat them as if they're shoddy, incapable editors. Generally I believe that Orlady is working in good faith to improve DYK and has often been constructive, but several of her recent reviews of our work give the impression that she enjoys stalling us and stopping nominations from going through, otherwise she'd correct the problems herself... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, there is a limit to the number of hours of my time that I am willing to devote to helping another user improve a short article in order for it to be displayed on DYK -- particularly when that user is someone who champions the alleged high quality of their work or expresses hostility toward my input. (A contributor's becoming the subject of a DYK personality cult, although possibly no fault of the contributor, also doesn't help make me enthusiastic about quietly providing assistance.) Further, note that I rarely seek QPQ credit for my reviews.

Consider the effort that I put into some of my recent contributions to work of the "Rosblofnari" group (including one review on which I declared that I wasn't going to help):

• Mink industry in Denmark: This DYK review edit provided some additional sources not cited in the article, suggestions on what could be extracted from these sources to improve the article, and comments on the significance of this information. This edit to the article was a substantial improvement to a reference citation that had previously (among its errors) misidentified the commercial publisher of a science journal as the author of the article.
• Eagle Peak (Wyoming): My first edit to the DYK review was made after a fairly extensive effort to review sources cited in the article and find good information about the article topic. Note that the edit cited a new, hard-to-find source. I deleted the article's Geology section not out of malice, but because I had been unsuccessful in finding any reliably sourced content that could be used to create a sensible, sourced section on this topic. In this next comment on the DYK review template, in which I was trying very hard to help the main author of the article understood the reasons for my concern with that section, I did some additional online research, some of which is reflected by the inclusion of a new source link in the comment. This edit that I later made to the Geology section of the article was the end result of a quite a bit of searching and reading over several days. At that time, the Geology section was the only one I had studied (because the content seemed so odd when I first read the article), but before I posted this comment on the DYK review page, I had thoroughly reviewed the article and those sources I could access, and I had searched extensively for additional online information about Eagle Peak. I honestly didn't think the nomination was salvageable, and I didn't want to devote any more hours of my life to what turns out to be a wisp of a topic.
• Bruno Möhring: My involvement with this one spanned an entire month. My early edits on the DYK nominations page (such as this one) were merely identification of issues and recommendations for addressing those issues. After seeing that the main author was trying hard but floundering, I delved more deeply into the sources and the article. I didn't attempt to fix the issues with the entire article, but focused on a few parts. This series of edits was the culmination of a fair amount of research on my part. It included addition of new sources and new information, as well as revision of text to improve the English and correct some factual errors and misinterpretations that I found in the article. My work in the article and at the nomination page led to a good hook that eventually got approved, and I made a couple of other visits to the article to revise some problematic passages. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"A contributor's becoming the subject of a DYK personality cult, although possibly no fault of the contributor, also doesn't help make me enthusiastic about quietly providing assistance." Thankyou for being honest. The impression I've been getting is that you somehow resent how many DYKs we produce and my DYK list. It doesn't matter what my status or number of DYKs is, each nomination should be treated as fairly as any other. Yes, you've made edits, but you know very well that you could have made the mink and Eagle articles ready for DYK if you really wanted to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 July 2013

• Why stop at suggesting I stop at those two articles? Why not suggest that I quit my job, abandon my family, and don a nun's habit and sequester myself in a library where I devote my life to helping other Wikipedia users perfect their articles?

Indeed, I could have fixed the mink article, and I likely would have done so if I thought the article creator lacked the capacity to do so (due to lack of ability in English, unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, etc.). Because I was operating under the impression that there were several people involved with the article who had the capacity to do the necessary work -- and who would be motivated to do so because they take pride in their work, I simply provided information about the issues I had identified, along with suggestions on fixing them. Apparently I misjudged the people I was interacting with. My point I want to make here is that I am happy to extend charity toward those who cannot help themselves, and I am often try to be helpful for no apparent reason, but I tend to be a lot less willing to be charitable when I feel someone is taking advantage of my generosity -- particularly when they attack me for not doing more.

As for Eagle Peak (Wyoming), I tried, but I don't believe that there's enough information to support a valid 5x expansion. Good luck with your next reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Why stop at suggesting I stop at those two articles? Why not suggest that I quit my job, abandon my family, and don a nun's habit and sequester myself in a library where I devote my life to helping other Wikipedia users perfect their articles?" Well, the time you spent scrutinizing everyone of the sources and the effort you put in trying to find errors and report on them in the Mink article wasn't your typical busy mother of four operating., put it that way.. It takes a lot of time checking and reading every source...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) EVERYONE knows that total voluntary seclusion must use a didgeridooCoal town guy (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Joey Clinkscales

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mehmet Baransu

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If I really wanted to Orlady I could pick dozens of holes in this article and could have gatecrashed this DYK nom and stalled it.

• What makes idefix.com a reliable source?
• MOS issues with publisher given before title in sources
• Excessive reliance on Today's Zaman as a source without an adequate range of sources.
• There is a lot of controversial material in the article which really should be wider researched to other sources. I'm suspicious with the excessive use of Today's Zaman as a source, a paper which appears to have a certain political stance.

My point is that this article, several of ours, or most others have multiple "issues", only you choose to act upon every minor concern and grill certain editors for their lack of quality. If you gave a fair approach on every article, you'd not have approved this article and would have mentioned the basic referencing problems.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Addressing your comments on this DYK nomination of mine (nominated after finding the article on a "new articles" list):

Q: What makes idefix.com a reliable source?

I don't know if it's a reliable source, but I have no reason to question it. It's cited in quite a few other Wikipedia articles and it's never been discussed at WP:RSN. Anyway, it's not the source of the DYK hook fact.

• MOS issues with publisher given before title in sources

Those kinds of MOS niceties are not a consideration for DYK.

• Excessive reliance on Today's Zaman as a source without an adequate range of sources.

The article cites a total of four different online publishers, so it hardly relies on one source. Since Today's Zaman is in English (unlike most of the sources on this topic), it's not surprising that the English Wikipedia article would contain several citations to it. I generally AGF on a contributor's choice of sources unless I see evidence of a problem.

• There is a lot of controversial material in the article which really should be wider researched to other sources. I'm suspicious with the excessive use of Today's Zaman as a source, a paper which appears to have a certain political stance.

Where's the controversy? If your knowledge of Turkish politics causes you to be concerned about the controversy and the use of that source, I wonder why you didn't raise your concerns during the DYK review. Additionally, if this article is truly controversial or has non-neutral POV, I'd expect to see commentary from people with other POVs, particularly after the article appeared on the main page in DYK. Until your comments here, no objections to these aspects of the article surfaced since the article's appearance in DYK. I also note that the articles about the same topic in the Kurdish and Turkish Wikipedias have been pretty stable, although there was some edit warring on the Turkish article back in 2011. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for C/O Sir

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Barony of Chalandritsa

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating this. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 13:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Khorashan of Kartli

I was wondering if you could help me figure this out. It seems like the reviewer is holding up the nomination just because it isn't linked to a certain list although the article is not an orphan. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I recommend patience. This nomination is still very new, so there's really no cause to expect it to be reviewed already. The reviewer lives a few countries away from Georgia and may have some knowledge of the subject matter; they could be heading off to the library to check an offline source (or something like that). The article looks solid, so it should just be a matter of time.

I find that it's generally unproductive for me to fret over the review status of my DYK noms -- they all get reviewed eventually. --Orlady (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that they get reviewed eventually, but I just wanted to fix something as soon as I could if there was something for me to fix. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I won't be concerned about the wikilink for now. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the spirit! --Orlady (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Motunau Island

Hi Orlady – I appreciate your improving and DYK nominating the article on Motunau Island. I am just a little wary about the statement that the island supports half the world’s breeding population of White-faced Storm Petrels. The source refers to NZ white faced storm petrels (emphasis on the ‘NZ’). I think the statement in the source is clumsy and ambiguous, but suspect it was intending to refer not to the world population of the whole species, but either to the subspecies that breeds in New Zealand, or possibly to the proportion of the population that breeds in New Zealand. Either way it might be safer to add the ‘NZ’ to the statement in the article and nomination. Cheers. Maias (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I definitely see the issue. (Glad you were paying attention!) I pulled the hook out of the DYK prep area to give time to sort this out. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested an alt. SL93 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Random Act of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I hereby award the "Random Acts of Kindness" Barnstar to you for your excellence in working with a new contributor at Talk:Tractor Supply Company. You did a great job of explaining how referencing and images work while using plain language. Royalbroil 03:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- but I fear that you give me more credit than I deserve, since I had reverted this user's edits a few times before the productive talk-page discussion finally began. I have high hopes that this interaction will lead to a much better article. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

hathorn socks

Okay, fine. Done. DS (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

NRHP nomination document

I have received the nomination document today. It is in three files with many pages so now I have plenty to expand the article Simmons Hardware Company Warehouse. SL93 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Cornelison Pottery

Confused — why self-revert on Cornelison Pottery? This page clearly shows that you had the right company's website. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the right history, but the company isn't Bybee Pottery. It's "Little Bit of Bybee", a shop in Middleotown, KY, that sells Bybee products. Anyway, if the Bybee article and the Cornelison article get merged, this will be moot because the Bybee article has a link to this website. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes you just gotta smile

A long time ago, someone showed me Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas, after I had commented something like, "sheesh....such drama going on at....", which had nothing to do with DYK. The article brought a smile to me, but given the most current noms, I think this article missed something. Some goodbyes are not forever, they just rebrand and return. I shouldn't laugh, but you could have bet money on this one. BTW, what confuses me is that the "new" name has been in effect for years. Wasn't that a sock? I guess I don't understand that ins and outs of rules that don't always apply. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Great essay! Thanks for the link. I need to remember that one!

I hadn't looked into the history of this "new arrival". According to the WP:SPI archive, it's a disclosed alternative account that is not subject to sanctions. However, considering the way way "they" have been talking to "each other", a new SPI case may be in order. (I have not, however, looked at the recent history closely enough to verify that they are truly pretending to be different people.) --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a textbook story of the "diva" phenomenon, but I don't think that the use of the new alter ego is seriously deceptive enough as to violate the rule against sockpuppetry. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If I was a sock puppet I wouldn't exactly redirect my talk page watched by some 400 people to a different account , notify FA delegates and make it so bleedin obvious would I? Ask Amalthea, anybody, it's common knowledge among anybody who isn't stuck so far up their arse they can't see what is going on." If I was a diva, I wouldn't edit wikipedia and work in a community where the harder you work and the better known you get, the worse you get treated. I'd be out being a rock star demanding everybody kiss my feet. Some goodbyes are not forever, they just rebrand and return". I'll be damned if I do Maile, I solemnly promise you that my name won't appear at DYK again, although sometimes people nominate things without you doing so, I believe I had to remove my name from a Drmies nomination yesterday. My next article is Environmentalism in Tennessee, ideal material for the disgruntled among us to devour. Don't make things personal Orlady, please shut up and continue doing what you do and I'll do the same. Adios. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I had as much of my ego bound up in Wikipedia as some people apparently do, I suppose I would be a regular at FA (in hopes of picking up accolades for my work) and I suppose I would have checked Dr. Blofeld's talk page to see what he was doing after saying "Adios" at WT:DYK. But I didn't. Hasta la vista! --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We need to discuss some things

Orlady, seriously, when I have a fall out with somebody I always do my best to try to talk things through with people and clear the air. I always respected you on wikipedia and always treated you well until recently, but what you've done of late has really altered my perception of you and this sort of thing is atrocious for decent, respectable people to stoop down to. Seeing this sort of mocking banter towards me here I take very personally and the above posts were completely inappropriate for wikipedia by everybody. When things start to get to people on a personal level, then something needs to change. I am really not the type of person who people can do this sort of thing to and let it be. I don't like seeing you this way, myself this way, or editors who you thought were on good terms with a mutual respect turn up like Maile did here and stab you in the back. For both our sakes, I strongly suggest we talk this over either here or preferably off wiki and try to improve this situation. If you are the decent, respectable woman you profess to be you'll email me (you didn't respond to mine) and we can talk this over and try to patch up our differences.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to see your expression of good will -- and an apparent desire to "bury the hatchet". However, I find your attitude disingenuous. Your actions, not mine, are responsible for the drama that you want to end. As I see it, this episode between us started with the salvo you fired on this page when you posted "Enough is enough. There's a line and you've crossed it ... If I see you so much as breathe in one of our DYK nominations again...". It continued in the subsequent discussion here, the missiles you lobbed in my direction on WT:DYK and your various personal digs and diatribes elsewhere (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], and some derogatory remarks about "Borelady", etc., that you apparently had the good taste to delete). There is no question that you have been at the center of a lot of drama lately, but the drama is entirely of your own making (or should I say "your own authorship"). I try not to spend time fussing over wikidrama -- which helps explain why I hadn't noticed that you had shifted to using the Tibetan Prayer account. All I did was engage with you here, then inform the DYK community that I wasn't going to be reviewing any more of your group's material -- and why. As for Maile66's comment here, I interpret it as an expression of both sympathy (because I have been criticized -- mostly at your instigation -- for driving you away) and amusement, combined with bewilderment that your use of the Tibetan Prayer account hasn't been sanctioned as a case of sockpuppetry.

Now for my take on the underlying content-related issue. The principal members of your group are all known to me to be solid, capable contributors. Recently, however, I was surprised and disturbed to see DYK nominations with your names on them that had the kinds of problems I used to associate with some far less competent contributors who will go unnamed for now. Now that I recognize the lengths you had taken your collaborative article creation efforts to, I think that the decline in quality was inevitable. Collaboration is a wonderful thing when one collaborator's strengths balance collaborator's weaknesses -- for example, by supplying foreign-language translation skills or hard-to-find print references, by using good copy-editing skills to polish an article, or by using subject-matter expertise to help resolve some ambiguities in the content. It appears to me (from reviewing some article histories) that over time your group got so confident about the collaborators' abilities that you figured you no longer needed to specialize in that fashion. Instead, it looks like each of you would contribute a few sentences' worth of research and text to a new article and call the article "ready" without any one of you taking holistic responsibility for the article. In articles like Mink industry in Denmark, this resulted in internal factual inconsistencies (possibly because different people found conflicting "facts" and uncritically dumped them into the article), close paraphrasing of sources, some incoherent statements and incomplete sentences, and serious inaccuracies in representing the information provided by the sources. This "Naked Came the Stranger" approach to writing may work out OK sometimes, but I believe the results of the Rosblofnari experiment (as demonstrated in articles like Mink industry in Denmark) indicate that it is seriously deficient when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. You claim that you weren't doing this for the DYK credits, but statements like this one about the goal of getting 1000 DYK credits for other team members support my contention that the accumulation of credits was a major goal of your activities -- and a driver for the apparent emphasis on quantity over quality.

My advice to you and the rest of the Rosblofnari group is that you go back to doing what you're good at, and quit trying to pretend that you are so superior to the rest of us that you have perfected a method to churn out quality encyclopedic content using the same methods that McDonald's uses to make hamburgers. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Me personally, my goal was never 1000 DYK credits or any more. but passing the 1000 DYK mark was a special moment from a contribution point of view and one which many people commented on and practically tried to get me knighted for, as a sign of respect for my contributions. I myself said that the proposal to have a DYK on me and others was going overboard and it wasn't that big a deal. I'm under the impression that Rosie and Nvv remembered that moment and that it would be a special moment for them in reaching that milestone too. And my hope is that once they reach 1000 DYK they'll feel different and join me in producing GAs rather than DYKs, that's why I said it. None of us edited for DYK for a long time after we joined. I don't think I even reached the 25 mark until 3 years later. What motivated me from the start was having a bank of articles I thought half-decent in which I can look back over in future times. I've never placed value in DYK count, and one of the reasons I'm unwilling to make a lot of changes myself with DYKs is that personally I'm not overly concerned if they hit the front page or not, I'm not motivated by getting a credit. That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to correct inaccuracies, I take accuracy very seriously, but I'll admit to rarely ever looking at DYK noms after I nominate them and not showing an interest. But I thought you might have been more willing to help correct what you saw as problematic. I see your reasons for it is that we should do it ourselves and have a high DYK count, but that in itself indicates that you place more value on DYK count and don't treat each article equally, regardless of who created it. Sure, you're busy, and don't feel inclined to help every article, who does? But you did spend a lot of time studying the sources and reviewing it and you really seemed to care or show an interest in the article. I really didn't look too much into it, but from what I saw Rosie did appear to try to improve it and then I saw you insult her/us. Another editor by email has pointed out what really happened and I can see now why you said that, but admittedly I barely even looked at the nom and problem and was only really aware of it when I was alerted to your exchange of words with Rosie which to me looked out of order on your part and that you seemed to relish continuing to complain. I agree, that's not good enough on my part, and I apologize if I confronted you about it, but it was the insult which made me respond which I thought was rather mean. But that's one of the reasons I've quit DYK is that although I've been nomming them I don't really care about pushing them through, I'm not motivated to do so and I should really be responsible for overlooking it. I'm the sort of editor who when works alone remembers the sources and content I use and if somebody confronts me about an apparent inaccuracy on my talk page I'll gladly fix it.

A big part of the problem of the DYK articles together is that many of them contain translated material, and if the editors translating it aren't fluent in it, occasionally innocent errors might creep in not accurately produced from the source. Me personally I understand Spanish and a bit of French, and am able to auto translate and decipher material for a lot of languages which makes sense to me, but I usually request a fluent speaker to check (Ipigott understands a huge number of languages, so does Yngvadottir). Nvv admitted that he has major problems with translated material in particular and I think he is aware that this can create errors. He has stated on numerous occasions that he doesn't want to edit articles which he has to auto translate for, but because our group are so global, most articles in fact need some form of translation, and Nvv, being Nvv, always willing to help and in good spirit usually contributes. Because so much content is produced, which I don't have time to check the sources by the others, I no longer want to held personally responsible for anything I didn't do myself for DYK. For a long time now I've said that I'm not enthusiastic about the DYK process, I wasn't too happy with QPQ when it was introduced and temporarily stopping contributing to DYK. But I think another cause of the problems you might have seen is the 5 x expansion and 5 day deadline rules. Rosie and I especially dislike editing in sandboxes and don't like adding material which is irrelevant to the article just for the sake of x5. It is wrong in my opinion to bloat articles just for the sake of DYK. The encyclopedia articles is far more important. I greatly value the input of the others, and I don't believe that every article is of extremely poor quality, but I am concerned that many issues go unidentified because of translation or whatever and I'd rather produce content with the group in which we have the time to check each source and produce something of higher quality like GA. But at the end of the day, nobody has to contribute anything here, and I'd rather an environment where the relationship between editors and reviewers is amicable and nobody is perceived as superior (I was thinking the same thing about you) and everybody tries to help each other. But I really am not being a diva, there are genuinely multiple reasons why I consider DYK problematic or unattractive and this was just to catalyst for what I've long felt. Wikipedia hasn't lost anything by me not contributing to DYK, it doesn't matter, honestly. I just think DYK needs reform and has a mechanism like article of the month which stops editors churning out masses of articles and trying to raise the bar and spend more time on each one.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr.B, Tibetan Prayer, my Notification alert said I got mentioned in this section. I wasn't lurking, and Orlady's talk page is not on my watchlist. Just in case that thought occurs to anyone. I also wasn't stabbing you in the back. Cool your jets a little, as difficult as that might be for you right now. But Orlady generally has it correct above on why I posted what I did. Other than that, what happens between you and Orlady is something that only the two of you can hash out. I realize that your overall contributions to WP are well above the norm, and Orlady is no slouch either. I think one could say "Dr. Blofeld looms large over Wikipedia content...." No one can contribute as much as you have without sometimes being on edge about other people's postings. I understand that from my own instinctive reaction to these things, and I'm nowhere near your level. I also realize that back when I was doing my own thing and nobody was paying attention, you came out of the blue and began to encourage me at a time when some big efforts from me had been stomped all over and usurped by someone else. That meant a lot to me, and still does. I don't think any less of you because of any disputes you have going. That diva article has been around for years. Quite frankly, you fit the profile. You have a history of reacting by walking away after letting everyone know why. Nobody has to be lurking anywhere to know this. I posted it here for Orlady, because sometimes you either laugh or you cry. Laughing is better. As for the sock comment, I was - and remain - genuinely confused about how these things work at WP. Again, I wasn't lurking. I was over at DYK Talk, and my mouse went past Dr. Blofeld and showed a popup that said it was being redirected to Tibetan Prayer. I haven't delved into the multiple account name scenario much, because I've never felt the need to have a secondary account myself. But it really puzzled me. I've seen some real battles at WP by people who got blocked for a lot less. I guess the best explanation is that WP is about every volunteer in a position of power doing their own thing, or doing nothing, whatever. I wasn't stabbing you in the back then, and I'm not now. But you really could stand a cooling off period. Not pleasant to hear, and difficult to digest. — Maile (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly cool thankyou very much (if I wasn't why would I try to clear the air with Orlady). You've just contradicted yourself by saying I really helped you when you were beginning on here and was facing hardship (I've been little but very supportive and praising towards the majority of editors on here however "small") yet the diva article emphasizes several times that the diva is extremely uncivil to "smaller" editors. I happily graze editing wikipedia and never claim to own or be a superior individual, but it is no coincidence that many people come to me to ask for my advice or help with something. If I'm ever uncivil or apparently in a tantrum about something it is because I feel that content is threatened, or that somebody is belittling the hard work and time I've put in here for free. It is always as a response to somebody, you don't see me throwing my weight around on here for no reason. If there's something I feel strong enough about and really dislike I have no problems with being honest, even if people really don't want to hear it. But I rarely say something belittling about the work and contributes of others and assume bad faith, which an awful lot of editors do on this website given that none of us having to edit a single thing. It wasn't so much that you called me a diva, it was the mocking, gloating tone in which you and Orlady presented it, which was disrespectful and clearly illustrates that you really don't know me, especially as you seem to think I'll come bouncing back at DYK in a few days time. Nobody needs DYK to contribute to wikipedia Maile, and one can live perfectly well without it. As for being a diva, I think any editor who has contributed a significant amount of work on wikipedia for free with little praise or reward needs some sort of goal or challenge to continue to do so, people need some form of self-motivation whatever it maybe, and people are generally going to feel miffed if somebody infers that their contributions are rubbish. Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr. B, your comments about the different strengths of your different collaborators underline what I said (or tried to say) earlier on this page. That is, your group's work was much better when everyone did what they are best at and/or most comfortable with, and people weren't trying to pretend that everyone was interchangeable -- or that decent articles could be built by having each of several people contribute a few isolated sentences. Go back to having collaborators contribute according to their personal strengths and inclinations, and your collaborative work will be more favorably received wherever it is reviewed.

As for the DYK rules, they are what they are. As I see it, the DYK process encourages some contributors (myself included) to bring their work up to a fairly basic threshold of length and quality before moving on to the next project. That's good. It also can be an opportunity to recognize the work of new contributors whose good-quality work gets noticed and nominated. Another benefit is that the main-page visibility of new articles often gets them copy-edited, categorized, etc., more quickly than would happen otherwise. Finally, DYK probably provides some interesting reading -- and a demonstration of Wikipedia's diversity -- for bored people who visit the Wikipedia main page looking for amusement. I could do without the DYK count, WikiCup, and other competitions because I think that kind of emphasis on numbers tends to result in lower-quality work and it creates aggravation for the people running the process.

As you note, no one needs to contribute to DYK. However, for those who do, the review process can provide either validation or a constructive critique of their work, with less commitment than other Wikipedia review processes. No one needs to review DYK noms or contribute to maintaining the main-page flow of DYKs either. I pitch in and help with those things because I get satisfaction from creating hooks and fine-tuning them, because the content is often interesting, and because I want to be helpful. In my experience, most nominators and authors have pride in their work and want to take the initiative to respond to reviewers' concerns, but there are some who need a lot of help and generally welcome the help. Because I don't like to step on people's toes, because I assume that most article contributors know more about their topic than I have learned as reviewer, and because I see the review process as having an educational component, when I find a problem as a reviewer I often advise a contributor on how to fix the issue, rather than rolling up my sleeves and fixing it myself. Most participants are good-natured about the process, so when I encounter contributors who are belligerent (whether it's saying "my article was perfect and who are you to say otherwise?", or an accusation of politically motivated ill will on my part because I discovered that their article was a copyvio, or "I don't need this grief, fix the problem yourself", or various other reactions I've encountered), it doesn't exactly motivate me to do favors for that contributor. You and your colleagues used to be in the category of people who did good and interesting work and were good-natured about the situation when problems were pointed out; I hope you'll come back to DYK some day in that same good mood.

Now about that "diva" page. Not all of the details fit, but I still see it as an apt metaphor for events with you. It also fits a couple of other individuals I've become acquainted with on this website -- and it's timely to see it now during an Arbcom case ("Infoboxes") that deals in part with articles about real-world divas. There's no inherent shame in being a diva. Divas are genuinely star performers. (The trouble with divas relates to the personality types that seek stardom and the emotional challenges of stardom.) Because they need an adoring, admiring public, divas respond positively to audiences and they do what it takes to seal the loyalty of their fans. Similarly, the Wikipedia divas I've observed go out of their way to offer their advice and assistance to newcomers (while making sure that the newcomers are aware that they are being aided by a star), and that early contact turns some of those newcomers into acolytes who can be counted upon to publicly mourn the diva when the diva later disappears. Divas are good to their audiences. The essay describes the "little people" that divas abuse as "helpers". "Helpers" are not the diva's audience. For real-world divas, I suppose that this group includes people with minor parts in the show (such as the singers in the chorus), stagehands, costume crews, etc. -- and possibly the diva's own family members. At Wikipedia, "little people" would include (but aren't limited to) the people who make sure the DYK process runs... Orlady (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Orlady you say that "Most participants are good-natured about the process" and that we were belligerent in response to you, but you're yet to explain why you felt the need to compare a DYK contributor's work as below that of an 8th Grader something like "if I'd contributed work like that in 8th grade I'd have had red marks all over my page" or say that "we only care about DYK credit" which I think it is is pretty clear to average person that you overstepped the mark with such comments and they came across as spiteful. And that was the only reason I spoke up, being I'm intolerant of intentional cruelty to people who work in good faith and I thought you crossed the line not with vigorous reviewing but with that comment. And I'm yet to see an apology from you over what you said especially that 8th grader comment which was bang out of order in my opinion. I'm not asking you to stop reviewing or reviewing vigorously, but I am asking you to try to refrain from making snide remarks about the work of others in your reviews and focus purely on the content rather than the contributors.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is the first time you indicated to me that those remarks were one source of your concern (the earlier discussion was about other topics). I have the impression that the other user and I reached some sort of peaceful accord over that item in a related conversation at WT:DYK. In a short period of time prior to those DYK comments, I had encountered multiple users (all of whom appear to be native speakers of English and who want to be thought of here as reasonably well-educated) who chastised me for using words they didn't understand and didn't think they ought to be expected to learn (including words like "consensus" and "verifiability"). Ironically, my involvement in that particular exchange started with my attempt to be helpful by explaining Nikkimaria's comments on the article, and I was irritated by the complaint that I had not made the explanation simple enough. --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was SL93 you said that to so I think he doesn't seem bothered by it. Anyway, I think it's important on everybody's part to not take things too seriously to the point that we become offensive... Best of luck!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As an opera lover, diva is absolutely positive, close to divina ;) - I read "infobox" above and would like to know what that has to do with it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, the "diva" references come from this Wikipedia essay.

I associate the "infoboxes" Arbcom case with divas because of an experience in 2007. I was chastised by a member of the opera Wikiproject over the presence of an infobox in the Grace Moore article, as well as other work I had done in that article. My critic felt that inclusion of an infobox and some other article content didn't treat the subject with the reverence that he believed an opera star to deserve: "I don't think she would have liked that. She deserves to be regarded seriously as a singer." That experience has led me to think of the anti-infobox attitude as "Infoboxes are OK for mere mortals, but they are too undignified for divas". --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about Blofeld's statements. He said that he was the most productive editor on the website and also belittled another editor based on the editor's age and writing. This was on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Real-world divas aren't consistent, either. --Orlady (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Palikir

Orlady, Thank you for stopping by my talkpage and for transcluding the Palikir nom. I didn't realize it wasn't transcluded or I would have taken care of that task. Appreciate your assistance with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Badger flea

Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this one. You're the best person I can think of who could have an informed and experienced opinion on the issues raised in the discussion of this DYK. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the Badger flea DYK nomination page where you said "IMO, the information about fleas in general is appropriate to include in this article. Biology articles often repeat that kind of generic information." This was a matter that concerned me when I started writing articles on animal species and I did query the matter at WikiProject Animals. The more a specific animal is studied, the less easy it often is to find out about its basic description, feeding habits or life history because the research community has moved on to its secondary metabolites or its function as the vector of an obscure parasite. It seems to me that for the general reader, some background information of the form "Like other fleas, the badger flea ..." is useful. Many readers will not even know that a flea is an insect (although they can tell this from the taxobox). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cslcollege.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Cslcollege.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense

The main page of DYK says "Articles for DYK should conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright." It wasn't just statistics, it also includes such things as being one of the leading sprinters of the world and having an uncited quote. If only the hook needs to be verified, that statement should be removed. SL93 (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK – back to 3 sets a day?

Hi Orlady! There appears to be consensus to return back to 3 DYK sets a day, since there is now a backlog of 55 approved hooks out of 203 in total. Could I trouble you to change it back? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

8 or 12 hours

I don't know if you are watching Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Increase_to_eight_hooks.3F or will see it before it is relevant, but take a look at my comment if you have a chance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hartland Moor

Orlady (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

20/20 Experience hook

You can change the hook to your suggestion if you want. I think that it flows better. SL93 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed Blofeld's comment. Damn, that is annoying. I wouldn't still be trying to collaborate with you if I still cared about that. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to think that we can be friends in spite of occasional misunderstandings and disagreements. --Orlady (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Annoying, maybe, but perhaps you like being treated like a dog SL, others here don't.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should mind your own business. I would hate the majority of people that I know if I hated them because of comments that they made. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Coming from the coward who hides behind another username when things get tough? SL93 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and instead of implying that I like being treated like a dog, say it. Stop with the Hannibal Lecter bullshit, coward. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Answered on SL's talk page, removed as resolved now. Life is too short to hold grudges or remain hateful or angry with people. Continue to do what you do well Orlady and I hope we both come out of this better off. Take care.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Johnnie Jones

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for working on the DYK articles. They are fun to read especially about mushrooms and new discoveries of previously unknown animal, insect, and plant life. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Wennergren

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A janitorial soap opera task

Hi, I opened up an afd for Pete Cortlandt. After doing so I saw that I had done so about 2 years ago before and the result of the afd was delete and redirect. The same suggestion that I made in the 2nd afd. Being that a consensus has already been reached on the first afd, but no one actually performed the deletion and redirect, I am asking you to: 1) delete and redirect the article, and 2) close the 2nd afd. [5]--Wlmg (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the new AFD needs to proceed. The article was redirected back in 2011 after the AFD, but it was revived earlier this year and has been edited by several users. It could be argued that the online revival of the series has made this character notable. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ooopss I missed that. Thanks for the updated info. --Wlmg (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:American women writers by state

Category:American women writers by state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Louis N. Stodder DYK nomination

Hi Orlady, thanks for looking in on the Louis N. Stodder nomination. Just wondering about the progress: Is the nomination good to go? What is a QPQ? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: The nomination is good, and it's been moved into Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, in preparation for going to the main page around noon EDT tomorrow.

"QPQ" refers to the DYK requirement that people who (1) are nominating their own work at DYK and (2) have accumulated 5 or more DYK credits should do a "quid pro quo" review of another nomination (this is mostly intended to spread the workload more evenly, but it also helps contributors develop their own skills in writing articles and hooks). --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds fair. Btw, another user pointed out a close paraphrasing issue on the 'Stodder page, but I've already reworded the passage in question. Thanks for your help, time and effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Camden County Police Department

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Per your request

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/August 2013 --Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Motunau Island

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for dropping by my talk page, Orlady. I got a statistic for you: you're number one! Drmies (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to North Port–Sarasota–Bradenton metropolitan area may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• August 13, 2011 |newspaper=Herald-Tribune |location=Sarasota, Florida |accessdate = August 3, 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Former Masonic buildings

Doncram and I are discussing this on my talk page... you are welcome to join the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Symbolic ethnicity

Can you clarify what you mean? You previously said "The source indicates that Saint Patrick's Day commemorations are an example of symbolic ethnicity, but nothing in the source says the celebration is "highly symbolic", and that only highly was the problem. If there were any other problems, you never said what they were. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping that the proponents of the article and hook would look at what the source actually said and revise the article accordingly. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the article doesn't have what the source says. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be true that the source is different from what is in the article, even after "highly" was removed from the article and the hook. I haven't read the source, but I assumed that there were no other problems because you didn't mention anything else. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You should not have approved the hook without looking at the online source. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As an experienced reviewer, you should have mentioned all of the problems, instead of assuming things. I figured that you had all the other points covered as the original reviewer. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So, to be clear, I had no reason to suspect that your review was not actually a review. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I pulled the hook from the prep area after identifying a non-trivial problem with the hook. If my only concern with the hook had been with the word "highly", I would have simply removed that one word from the article and hook. My comments in no way suggested that I had done a thorough review of the article and its sources, and I most definitely did not so much as hint that I had personally determined that everything except the hook wording was fine. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You did though. "The source indicates that Saint Patrick's Day commemorations are an example of symbolic ethnicity". That is saying what the hook says. If you didn't read it thoroughly, you shouldn't have made such a statement.SL93 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If I had intended to suggest rewording of the hook, don't you think I would have done so? --Orlady (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you or did you not say an incorrect statement about a source, after not thoroughly reading it? SL93 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Barun Biswas

Greetings, please read this and this Times of India articles. (now, since a film has been made on his life, considering the person now passes Wikipedia notability guidelines, I have started writing Barun Biswas). Right after that an IP has jumped in and expanded the article. a) If you feel sympathetic towards this lion heart guy and b) you have some time in hand, can you please copyedit the article (this is a small article, so it'll not take lots of time), so that we can take it to DYK? (you can nominate too). --Tito☸Dutta 16:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Terry McDaniel

The DYK project (nominate) 02:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Paulina Lavista

Alex Shih^Talk 13:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Paulina Lavista

hey, thanks for nominating my article! I gave up on nominating them a long time ago, but its especially nice to see someone bothering to jump through the hoops to do it! I feel honored. :D Thelmadatter (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I was pleased to nominate it. However, I'd like to hope that you would consider bringing some of your own work to DYK again. Nominations really aren't all that hard to do, and we need some more topical diversity. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Kazandibi

	Kazandibi
	Thank you for your everything you do to keep wikipedia a better place.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks delectable. I don't think I've ever eaten a dessert by that particular name, but it reminds me of some other pudding-like desserts I've enjoyed from Greece, the Balkans, Armenia, etc. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is delicious Turkish dessert. Its name means the bottom of the Kazan on Turksih. I ate it several times in one sweet shop operated by Macedonian Turks in Old Bazaar, Skopje, Macedonia. I also found it in one sweet shop in Greece operated by Albanians, so I guess it is possible that you ate it in Greece or Armenia. It is pudding-like. There are several different recipes. Some I found on internet even include chicken breast, but I think that most usual variant is sweet one (like the one I photographed) which is based on the milky pudding made of Rice flour, as described here. Turkish desserts are delicious and Kazandibi, Kadaifi and Kanafeh are ranked 2—4 on the top list of my favorite deserts. The first place is reserved for Greek dessert Galaktoboureko... Sorry, I could go on with stories about desserts forever. :) Cheers! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That does indeed look very nice!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

National Economic Council, Inc.

Thank you for your speedy work on adding sourced content to this article which had sat for years with no context. Good job! OccamzRazor (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

50,000 NRHP sites illustrated

		WikiProject National Register of Historic Places Award
		For helping WP:NRHP to illustrate 50,000 historic sites. Keep up the good work! Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Fuad Reveiz

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Information technology in Bangladesh

Orlady, I was wondering whether you might be able to take a look at this nomination. I haven't been able to interest Nikkimaria in rechecking the paraphrasing, yet as important is the current disagreement over the original hook, which Yogesh Khandke has expressed objections to. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm very glad that you've agreed to take this one on, and am perfectly happy to see the hooks be about something other than the kid. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Clinch (Pellissippi) River

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Talk:Clinch River.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Chaswmsday (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Johann Julius Hecker

Alex Shih^Talk 12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ron Gates sock puppetry

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron Gates, you noted that you blocked all three socks. But not the master? Why not? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice turn of phrase!

I'm just going through the last day or so of Talk:WikiProject NRHP, and I have to say that I really enjoyed your phrase "the most exquisite example of Brutalist architecture in Mudville". It's not the first time you've come up with a nice pseudo-quote on architecture, and they're much appreciated as lending a light touch to the discussion. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Ammodramus (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks so much, I actually went to a Brutalist high school, I just love getting flashbacks... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL. There's something totally incongruous about an institution called "Classical" being housed in a Brutalist building. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

White County etc

Hey Orlady. Happy with that, but not happy that the article in question doesn't mention White County at all. With no references at the White County article, this is confusing. I know you're aware that this is all about our reader and not about inside knowledge from Americans who happen to know Sparta is in White County. Most of us will have never heard of either. In any case, if we're not referencing the list at the top level, we should at least have a reference, or as a minimum, the words "White County" in the prose of the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

[EC] Well, you edited the target article to say that Sparta is "in White City". That was wrong. Sparta is, however, in White County. I corrected the target article to say that Sparta is in White County.

However, when describing a city in the U.S. (meaning an actual bona fide city, as distinct from an obscure rural place), we seldom give the county name next to the city name (unless we are the Wikipedia user Billy Hathorn, who does that consistently). Considering that White County has a population of only 25,000, I wager that very few people know that Sparta is in White County. However, pretty much every place article for Tennessee displays a template like Template:White County, Tennessee to help people sort out the geography. Since it's clear from his article that Benny Martin was born in Sparta and it's clearly indicated in Wikipedia that Sparta is in White County, I would think that the White County article can list Benny Martin as being "from White County" without spelling out that he's from Sparta, and Sparta is in White County, so therefore he's from White County. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ignoring my typo, the point was that an non-US reader may see him listed at White County's people but then his article only mentioned it as a category. It's unfair on readers to expect them to know that Sparta is in White County, nor to understand the intricacies of these various towns, villages, non-incorporated places etc of the US. If we don't reference the "notable people" at the point they're mentioned, the least we should do is reference them in the same capacity at the target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood. My personal preference (not universally shared -- I keep encountering contributors who seem to be determined to remove descriptive information from lists) would be for the embedded list to include some information about the person's connection with the place, along the lines of "native of Sparta" or "practiced law in the county for 15 years before entering politics". That kind of description should eliminate the perceived need to adopt Billy Hathorn's writing style. --Orlady (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've found a handful of reasonably average US town articles which make an attempt to do this, and more power to them. Instead, there are thousands of articles with indiscriminate lists of "Notable people" which don't have any kind of inclusion criteria, nor any description as to why they may be relevant to a particular geographical location. I've tried cleaning some of the gigantic mess up, tried to alert people's attention to it, there are some owners of these articles which makes things difficult. I'm just mainly concerned with the idea that this is English Wikipedia, not US towns and cities WIkipedia. We need to reference things in the right place.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's useful to realize that most of those articles were created by a bot that populated them with badly worded content that described 2000 U.S. Census data, citing census data urls that no longer work. Edits have been made over time by random users who drop by to add their favorite fact about their home town, but many of these articles have never been adopted by anyone who knows or cares about the place and is even remotely clueful about Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

At one time I tried to interest Wikiproject United States in setting up new scripts and a bot run to update all of the outdated census information, but unfortunately that Wikiproject seemed to be more interested in putting Wikiproject templates on talk pages than in actually working on content. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, just one more question, where do you draw the line on how many articles or how far up the geographical chain you go when including these people? Do you have "Notable people" of Tennessee for instance? Are all "notable people" mentioned all the way up the chain, or just some? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't personally set policies on U.S. "people" lists. IMO, however, it's appropriate for place articles to identify notable people associated with that place, particularly if they are closely identified with the place. In the rural south (but not everywhere in the U.S.), the county is often the only unambiguous geographic identification and the most local level of government. For a rural county like White County, which has fewer people than some "small towns", the county's identification with a few famous people may be one of the most salient things to say about it. Therefore, it makes sense that the article has a list of notable people. My experience is that there are lots of local people who are devoted to creating and expanding those kinds of lists, so removing them would be a losing battle. When the list is long, it's best to make it a stand-alone list, as in List of people from New Rochelle, New York. There is a List of people from Tennessee -- and there are similar lists for most of the U.S. states, but my personal opinion is that its scope is too broad to make it particularly meaningful (or maintainable). --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, speaking of ownership, I reinstated a {{cn}} tag here with ample justification, the target article has Ohio (and Alliance) as mentions in categories, infoboxes, but is verified nowhere. User:WilliamJE continually reverts these edits as "pointy" but fails to see the point, the BLPs should be referenced adequately, claims that certain people are from certain places need references somewhere. It would appear that WilliamJE doesn't believe this. Incredibly tiresome. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ample justification? Not just me, but another editor has repeatedly removed that tag of yours. So often in fact, that if 3RR extended for more than 24 hours you would have received a block already. A case of edit warring at Alliance could be made against you but of course nothing will ever be done to an administrator around here....William 17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[EC] I'm not interested in getting into the middle of the TRM contention with WilliamJE. I've seen both of your monikers on a number of pages that are on my watchlist (but that I usually ignore), so I've taken a look at the activity. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, please User:WilliamJE, stop comparing various admin's edit behaviour to those of child sex offenders. Enough said I think. Although, clearly neither WilliamJE or "another editor" has bothered to read the target article, where is Alliance verified with reliable sources? So hard to find for me, think of the reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I will have you all know that Bolt, West Virginia a CDP with a population of 548 and HOME OF Little Jimmy Dickens serves a breath taking pepporoni rollCoal town guy (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI on Doncram

I often agree with most things you do concerning Doncram on here--at least as far as arguing about content goes--but that ANI you opened pointing out his talk page was too long was a pretty dumb thing to do. At the very most (though I think it still would have been an interruption), you could have posted at WT:NRHP about it.. but you simply could have asked one of the members of the project privately to suggest it to him/place the tag there. If you are under an interaction ban (aren't you? Or is that just Sarek?), you probably shouldn't even have the page watchlisted, much less visit it often enough to realize the length was getting to be a problem.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not under an interaction ban, so I couldn't cite that as a reason not to notify him on his talk page. For a long time, however, he has objected if I post on his talk page, and during the Arbcom proceeding I did say that I would try to stay away from him -- because I finally grokked to how profoundly upset he becomes by anything I say or do.

A while back, I looked at his talk page in connection with some recent discussions at WP:NRHP (mostly he shows how active he has been in creating articles through AFC) and I noticed that the page history included several huge unexplained deletions that he had (understandably) reverted. I guessed that the length of the page was an issue; I was surprised to see that he had apparently quit archiving it. I didn't say anything about it at the time. Yesterday, I noticed that another user whose talk page is on my watchlist was engaged in a discussion with a user whose much shorter talk page had been inappropriately archived without permission. (That user was given a nice explanation of why it might be in their interest to archive their own page.) That led me to check to see if Doncram's talk page was continuing to grow. It was....

I am sure that Doncram has no desire to create problems for others, so I thought someone ought to politely approach him about the page. I considered asking a mutual acquaintance to contact him, but concluded that everyone I thought of either (1) was already not on his "good" list, (2) apparently supports Doncram in his belief that I am "out to get him", or (3) could be placed in the problematic position of becoming too closely identified with me if they agreed with my request. All of the regulars on the NRHP talk page fall into one of those categories. I figured that one of the Administrator's Noticeboards was the best place to find a totally neutral party who he would respect. In retrospect, I agree that it was not a good idea. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the Pricasso link on the main page

This is likely the most controversial article on Wikipedia right now. User:Russavia is in the process of being de-bureaucrated for trolling Jimbo with this article. There is no way this would get through the DYK process if it had been brought to the attention of large numbers of Wikipedians. In short this is a pretty "good" example of what's wrong with Wikipedia/Commons governance. Please remove asap. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not gonna get involved. I was shocked to see that it got promoted after all the contention, but the hook is surprisingly inoffensive. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at WP:CFDS.
Message added 14:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternate proposal at CFD

Hi there - Would you please take at look at the Alternate proposal I just made in this CFD for Youth-related categories.? I think you might like my idea. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again - just want to let you know that I've responded to your and another editor's comments. Best, Cgingold (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't go to the bother of continuing to notify me about new comments there. I have the discussion watchlisted, so I'll see the comments in a timely fashion. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My RfA

I should have thanked you for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I supported you because I wanted to do so, not because I was fishing for "thank you" messages. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Article move

Orlady:

Can you move the article H. Clay Evans to Henry Clay Evans? The redirect article is preventing me from doing so. Bms4880 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Interestingly, I didn't need to do anything special to delete the redirect page. --Orlady (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion please

SO, I volunteered to help reassess NRHP in West Virginia, you are shocked.......BUT, here is where I need your opinion IS THIS a stub, OR do you think, it MIGHT be a start. I thought to myself, MAYBE still a stub...........YES, I did indeed expand it, BUT, full disclosure and my wish to contribute will be the day.Coal town guy (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a start. I reformatted the article. After reformatting, I think it's more apparent that it's a start. --Orlady (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many Thanks. My Welsh is not great and I was able to acquire some newspapers that Jenkin B Jones would have read in the town where these buildings reside. The paper waas called the Druid, cool huh? I believe I will be able to update Jenkinjones, West Virginia accordinglyCoal town guy (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Zu Zu

I created Zu Zu with the best of intention and did research, to see if it was a trailer park or new real estate venture. Those I will not create a article for. I replied to your observation on the Catalysts page. I will only say, I respect the hell out of your work, BUT I very much miss little places, with odd names, that I used to call home....I guess, something happens, when you can never ever go home again. Coal town guy (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it looks to me like Zu Zu is or was a real place (not a stinking trailer park or the ilk), but likely more "was" than "is". (That historical society photo helps confirm its historical existence, but it would be nice to have another decent source to describe the place.) In a state that has unincorporated communities over 10,000 people and has an unincorporated community that's a county seat, I feel like we need to start making some distinctions between different kinds of unincorporated places...

PS - I can proudly report that I once managed to get a DYK for Nameless, Tennessee. Another of my DYKs, Triune, Tennessee, was easier to expand to the DYK threshold than Nameless was.

Unfortunately, there are scads of places in rural Tennessee, like Armathwaite, Tennessee and Rosedale, Tennessee, that I'm sure have interesting histories and are real and recognizable in modern times, but still don't have articles. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One day, in some wiki function, I will buy you a beer and tell you about my home, a little dot on the map, and the very very odd places around it......assuming I dont bore you to death, its fun honestlyCoal town guy (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

BUT THATS NOT ALL

Same user, same del tag removal....I took the liberty of at least removing the upper class remarkCoal town guy (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

While you were typing that, I started an AFD for Clifton Creek Ridge. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that once a PROD notice is removed, it should not be restored. Restoring PROD notices leads only to a pointless edit war. The correct next step is to start an AFD. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, and you will note that I actually do check to see if these places are places......You know its bad, when I of all editors point out, that a place is not a communityCoal town guy (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Orlady, your post on this review indicated that you were planning to post a viable ALT hook, since you believed the extant hook was not accurate. Are you still planning to do so? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I posted a couple of other hooks, but the article still is kinda deficient. --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I appreciate the hook suggestions. I hope, after your work, that the article is brought up to standard, but I have to admit I'm not optimistic, given what's happened with the other articles that have the same author and nominator from around the same time period. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You've been reading my mind... --Orlady (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the next round of edits has been made. Fingers crossed... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update

Thanks for the post on those project discussions. Not exactly an unbiased comment IMO but hopefully having someone else besides me comment will garner some interest. We'll see I guess. Kumioko (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing ventured, nothing gained... Also see my comment on the template talk page. I think that the best way to handle future edits to the template would be to reduce the protection level when you have edits to make, then restore the full protection when you are done -- to prevent well-meaning users from making a mess. --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep I agree. Thanks and I'll take a look at the template talk page. Kumioko (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Professionals - notice of discussion

You may be interested in the deletion proposal related to Category: Professionals. Regards, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Barun Biswas

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Archived copy of the main page --Tito☸Dutta 01:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the credit for me, Titoutta, but I'm not going to claim this one. I did hardly anything! I agree with you, however, that he was a good person with a story that deserved to be told. --Orlady (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/James E. Dull

Orlady, has the creator of this article addressed your concerns with his series of recent edits, or is there more work to be done? (I can't ask Drmies, since he's the one who came up with ALT2, and thus can't approve the article even if things have improved to that point.) Many thanks for taking another look. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the edits didn't resolve the situation. Instead of revising the article to be consistent with the cited sources, the article creator copied the hook wording into the article (in place of the text that was there before). I was very dismayed to see what they did, and I stayed away in hopes that they would do some more revisions. I need to be in a really good mood before I try to explain the issue in the noms discussion. --Orlady (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you find yourself in a good mood soon, though more because it means you can enjoy being in a good mood than this other matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mistaken identity?

Re: your message: I was following the CU results on that account. I had reported two other accounts and the CU found seven more accounts. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gogo_Dodo&diff=572082013&oldid=572081370 your message

Thuoght you might find this interesting

Given our recent discussions over at the WPUS template I thought you might find this interesting. Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I see that as one more good idea that probably won't be implemented due to the complexities of unbundling permissions. As for my proposal about the WPUS template, please note that edits like this one seriously reduce my inclination to trust... --Orlady (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that but if people would stop all the moaning about why some project can't tag their articles Wikipedia would be a lot happier place. Or if the admins would actually enforce WP:Ownership but that's not happening either. Frankly I think the WikiProject concept needs to be launched out the window and we can just get back to editing articles. Too much time is spent bickering about this or that project. I for one am sorry the idea was ever created. And honestly if my opinion that too many editors are showing article ownership and no one is doing anything about it bothers you, then sorry, but you are one of the admins in the position to enforce it. But I think its a shame you think I am the jerk when I am trying to clean up the mess and fix the system yet 99% of the 1400 admins just sit in the corners and watch. Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this could be a START?

IMO, a start what do you think? I might as well try to learn the ropes on ratings, DISCLOSURE, I did indeed add dataCoal town guy (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote the article, good point about organizationCoal town guy (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have finally addressed the building points etc etc, I also did some further re org on the articleCoal town guy (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Masonic Temple Building (Oak Park, Illinois)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Jacobsen

Orlady, do you think you might take a look at this sticky wicket? Proudbolsahye asked for my help finding someone to review it on my talk page. Looking at it, things are messy enough that I know I can't solve it: Nikkimaria as much as said she couldn't approve it after the many problems with using the online sources, since there were offline sources she couldn't get to, and AbstractIllusions is maintaining that close paraphrasing remains (and brought in a GA article that's an FAC candidate as another example of Proudbolsahye's problems in that area). Thanks for anything you can do, or even for considering looking at it. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

External Links post

Hello, I just wanted to tell you that the External Links noticeboard is not really used by anyone. I posted for help there before and no one was helpful at all, it only got me in trouble because then when I looked somewhere else someone said I am "forum shopping". But I think you are right in this case. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Assistance needed in promoting a DYK nomination

Would you be willing to promote a set of DYK hooks? Rosiestep has requested Goaribari Island become her 1000th DYK. Currently she has 998 DYKs with number 999 having recently been promoted to Prep 4. I have now approved Template:Did you know nominations/Goaribari Island. To help comply with her request, I am now asking several DYK regulars for assistance in promoting the Goaribari Island hook. Thank you for any assistance you can provide, or for you consideration if someone else responds before you see this message. --Allen3 ^talk 02:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to prep 1. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

TO: Orlady and DVdm

Hi DVdm. I obviously disagree with your removing my links. In regards to Sandy Feldman, her life as an activist started as a member of CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality, in New York City. She was first a member of New York CORE (aka Harlem CORE) and then East River CORE, both chapters of CORE in Harlem. She then played a pivotal role in the community control controversy in the city's public schools in the late 1960's, including the Ocean Hill-Brownsville school strikes of 1967-68. She was an incredibly important part of the of CORE in NYC and if you took the time top check the site you would have noticed she is mentioned on multiple pages. The site is also a non-profit site that supports and encourages much needed scholarship on the subject. There is no product being sold. This is not spam. I am not a robot.

The same goes for my including my links on the Harlem Riot of 1964. The riot started at a rally held by three different CORE chapters and only a few doors down from the office of Harlem CORE.The riot represents a pivotal moment in the history of CORE as a national organization and the that it started at a CORE rally is obviously significant.

If you took the time to read the actual Wikipedia pages on these two subjects, you would see that CORE is mentioned prominently in the narrative. How you can argue that the inclusion of these links is inappropriate does not make any sense. My links can only enhance the user's understanding of the subjects. I would appreciate if you would at least contact me before removing my links. Thank you.

Ej7 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on your talk page. I guess the warnings got your attention, and now I hope that we can help you contribute good content in a fashion that won't cause the kind of reaction that your first edits received. --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your supportive comment in the Village Pump discussion. Jim Crutchfield Jdcrutch (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to do so. I also posted a link to that discussion at WT:WikiProject Appalachia. --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject US

Thanks for taking the time and effort to document the beginning of the state merges.
SBaker43 (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fictional Hill Billy Cat

I very much appreciate you posting that at the Appalachia Project, I was able to go to the pump and replyCoal town guy (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 NWSL Season DYK

Hi Orlady,

I received a message on my talk page that if I wanted to remove the nomination, to add the deletion tag. I noticed you reversed the tag - so yes, I would like to remove it. If you prefer a different process, can you either point me in the correct direction or proceed with the removal/archival so I do not continue to receive messages? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I figured out what's going on. The message you got is for nominations that were never placed on the nominations page. You got that message because you had removed the nomination from that page. We have a different procedure for closing a withdrawn nomination. I'll go do that. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for closing it. I was wondering if you might be able to provide a second opinion on this DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Camille Levin? I am seeking additional opinions/reviews. Thank you.Hmlarson (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the second opinion Orlady, but as I explained on the nomination-page, I disagree that the article is ready for DYK due to close paraphrasing. Any further input is welcome. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail

Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail has been re-nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot request FYI

Bot request to unmerge the WPUS template. You have perhaps already run across this thread on your own. I think the IP that started the thread is Kumioko. If you have anything to add there, fine. If not, fine. Just seems to me that the whole idea has been left up in the air, and I don't know what kind of bot would be run if nothing concrete was decided upon. — Maile (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for removing that section at The Duck House. I was the one acted on OhConfucius' report at Main Page/Errors, and then I naturally dropped a note with the article creator, BletheringScot, and the reviewer; the person who placed the blanking template evidently forgot to create the investigation listing or notify the creator, and I've now created the listing and pointed out those omissions, but BletheringScot is understandably angry and I shared his impression that once the template had been placed it precluded my just rewriting the section, which I would otherwise have done. I'm glad you were not similarly intimidated out of editing! I see that BletheringScot has now posted at WT:DYK; since I no longer participate there I'll leave it to others to continue educating him on what fair use means here; I have already referred him on his talkpage to the page about copyright violation. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Well, I liked the humour at WT:DYK, even if Blethering Scot did not! I can't really attest that you "consistently lighten the mood", but you made me laugh in amongst a string of petty attempts to dodge the blame, so I think you deserve this regardless. Harrias talk 20:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad somebody appreciated my attempt at levity! --Orlady (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Post Office and Mine Rescue Station

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

DRV

See Wikipedia:Drv#List_of_Other_Backward_Classes. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:BlueMoonset#Template:Did you know nominations/Telepharmacy

Orlady, it looks like Bryan is giving up on this one—he hasn't responded yet because he edits maybe once a week—and Crisco's review says there's still undue weight on the US side of the ledger. Can you please take a look at the conversation on my talk page, which Bryan initiated, and let us know whether you wish to do any more work on the article? If not, and if Bryan is indeed finished, then I think we'll need to close the nomination as unsuccessful. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know...

I notice you keep leaving messages, after messages for me. Noticed I haven't I haven't replied yet? The reason is you do not make any sense with anything you say. I've said this before, you sound like a dictionary and it has nothing to with long or short words/syllables. It's the way you talk, like you're trying make a point, but what I'm not sure. I've always wondered if you talk like that, especially around other people. I'll never know of course, but it would neat to be a fly on the way when you do talk.

Also, don't you have anything better to then to follow me around on Wikipedia? I have my own personal stalker on here, very strange.

One last thing, what is your obsession for reference for past episodes for the Duggars or Murdoch? Haven't you noticed these are the only two shows on here that have references for episodes aired? Why do you come on here and changed what I do when there others who do stupider things? Why not get after them?

Why do you come on here at all, if you don't like the changes that are made?

I will check back on your wall, at a later point to see if you've given an answer I can actually understand. Until then, CIAO!!!!! :o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBB76 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S.

I saw the subject headline for "Ani discussion", but again you don't make any sense, which is why I don't bother reading anything you write on my wall. BBB76 (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that your recent one-month block wasn't long enough? --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

]: No worries. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Telepharmacy

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Margaret Durham

I've suggested a possible workable hook for Florence Margaret Durham, which has been stalled. The fact used is confirmed from the 1933 online source, and gives some idea of what is really involved in scientific research :-) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Florence Margaret Durham

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Orlady. As you know, I've thanked you for your diligent and detailed work on the Hillsdale College article. I was very disappointed, however, to see you post an ad hominem denigration of user:MilesMoney in your comment on the SPI he filed concerning the edit-warred sentence in the lede of the Mises Institute article. I hope you will strike through that comment in this serious matter, whatever its merits. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you thanked me for my edits at Hillsdale College. There and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuebecSierra, my purpose was to try to solve a problem, not take sides in a conflict. --Orlady (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute Lede

Hello, Orlady. I see that you removed the text which I re-inserted in the lede of the vMI article. I thought that my edit summary made clear the basis for undoing the removal: The right wing/cult text in the lede summarizes content which appears in the "Criticism" section of the article. The supporting RS references given by in-line citations which support the lede sentence have been pointed out several times to various editors who have removed the sentence stating that it is not supported by a reference. Do you disagree that the text which you removed from the lede reflects the reliably sourced text of the "Criticism" section of the article? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You guessed it, I don't think that the sentence in the lede accurately reflected the sources. The article talk page is the right place to discuss this. --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd address my question there, and if appropriate move this thread there as well. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I started the discussion already at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Please discuss content instead of edit-warring, although I did not provide details on what I didn't find in the sources -- merely that I didn't find the content in the sources. Also note that my edit summary said: Removing sentence. It may be true, but it's not supported by the cited source. Source only refers to "long-standing strain of American anarchism that .. evolved into the form of libertarianism ...associated with Rothbard and Rockwell, pres of LvMI" (that's all that I could fit in an edit summary). --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion

I see that you removed the speedy deletion tag on the Visitor visa page.

Can you please explain what specifically the article adds that isn't already addressed on the pages listed in the talk page? Please understand that there has been an effort to condense and otherwise centralize pages involving visas and pages such as this have reguarly been redirected or deleted (see Student visa and Exchange visitor visa)Sulfurboy (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The subject matter of the new article is covered by existing articles, but the scope of this article is distinctly different, in that it ostensibly addresses one particular type of visas (not visas in general) with a global scope (not one country). I couldn't justify using the speedy-deletion criteria to delete the page. Also, there are now links pointing to this page because the user redirected Tourist visa to the page. Merger back to visa (document) might be the best plan, but it deserves discussion. --Orlady (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_2#Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists

I answered your allegation. --Niemti (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

slight OR connection

ORL: Can you you please peer review article "Fluorine". A section is fine, since it is long. -TCO 98.117.75.177 (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

path forward on materials of construction, can you write it

ORL: We had a ref there before, but it was from an antifluoridationist website, so I killed it (not good source). I have found the following sources that talk about fluoropolymer use, nickel membranes, etc. I guess there probably were all kinds of materials (maybe some Monel and even stainless in places) as well as pumps, valves, etc. I don't want you to share any confidential information, but can you just write the section and source it appropriately? all I'm trying to do is say that the UF6 was corrosive and that fluoropolymer (a new material) was used.

[6], [7], [8]

71.127.137.171 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to pursue this right now. I know that the gaseous diffusion process equipment was (still is) mostly made from nickel, but I don't have sources at my fingertips. The articles Gaseous diffusion and K-25 also describe the use of Teflon, but the information is not sourced. --Orlady (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the Kirsh reference (pages 60-61), 2 above, supports the basic story. I have changed the wording slightly to align with that source. E.g. I don't have a source talking about nickel on pipes for instance. I have cut the jstg as no longer needed. Please two person control verify me.  ;-) 71.127.137.171 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello,

I need help.

Context I am occasionally active at another wikipedia (serbocroatian) and currently I am trying to resolve a problem with conflict between two editors. Two users are continually in conflict for long time, their conflict was never completely resolved, their actions based on mutual animosity disturb editing of other editors and slowly things got out of hands when one of them (who is admin) blocked the opposing editor during their dispute.

To resolve this issue I proposed 3 month interaction ban between them (link to section at sh.wiki version of village pump with my proposal and corresponding discussion.) Both of them agreed. One of them pointed to problem with numerous cn tags he placed in the (allegedly incorrect) assertions added by another editor and expressed his concern that during interaction ban they will be removed by him.

Question

Does interaction ban, precisely its part which forbids editor X to undo editor Y's edits to any page apply to editor Y's edits before interaction ban was enforced?

I am sorry if I bothered you with my question which is even not directly related to this wikipedia. In that case please point to more appropriate place to ask this question and accept my apologize. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Every Wiki has its own rules, so I can't help you there. Logically, a mutual interaction ban should mean that they don't undo each other's edits from before the ban. It might be a good thing if a neutral party could make decisions about those edits during the period of the ban. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

At sh.wiki (which has rather small community) it is agreed to follow the rules of en.wiki in cases like this, where rules of sh.wiki does not exist. We already clarified that decision about edits during the ban would be made by uninvolved party, just like you said. Thank you for your help. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Are you all right? Because I get the feeling my personal stalker is under the weather lately.

Why do you want to keep references for past episode of both the Duggars and Murdoch but not any other show on here? Why do you want ratings for season 12 of the Duggars but not any other past seasons?

It's like you're obsessed with it or something.

Blocking me is a stupid mistake, because I'm the only one who puts the episodes and updates them for 19 Kids and Counting. Now that you've done that, go and update them. This week there is only an one hour episode "Anniversaries to Remember".

You follow me around on this site and when I ask you why, you block me, instead of answering my questions. Could you answer these ones at least? 216.218.29.180 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out which IP you are using today.

As I have pointed out to you repeatedly in a variety of places, WP:Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy that depends on citing sources for article content. Articles about television shows aren't exempt from this Wikipedia policy.

The fact that there are TV articles that aren't appropriately sourced is a problem. The existence of unsourced content does not mean that valid sources should be deliberately removed from other content.

If you continue to insist on removing reference citations from articles, you are nothing more than a vandal. Sometimes adding new content to 19 Kids and Counting and other TV articles does not somehow make your vandalism OK.

By the way, I don't give a flip about 19 Kids and Counting, and I don't think that up-to-the-minute coverage of its new episodes is vital to the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Duggars

The episode that aired this week still needs fixing. There is no asterisk to indicate that it's an hour long episode, which it was.

Btw, you still haven't answered me. Why are you so obsessed with references for past episodes of this show and Murdoch Mysteries, but don't keep them for other shows?

In the past few months, you've changed and I don't know why. This obsession is new and it would be nice to figure out why. Though I doubt I'll get an answer.

You only write when *you* have something to say. 216.218.29.164 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

All content should be supported by reference citations. The fact that the encyclopedia has some unreferenced content does not mean that references aren't needed. You are the one who is obsessed -- you obsessively removes valid reference citations from articles about TV shows.

If you are aware of TV articles that lack citations, the best way to correct the inconsistency is to add citations to those articles. The general idea is to make all articles better, not to damage some articles so that all articles will all be uniformly bad. --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2

Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this one? (I asked Crisco, but he declined because of recent interactions with Tony. I don't recall whether you've had the same; if so, I'll understand if you prefer not to.) It doesn't seem to me that this qualifies as new, since the material was pre-existing (created on August 15, with expansion starting August 28), but it is quite true that Koala15 would turn said material into a redirect regularly until Tony stepped in, reinstated the material, and then began expanding. How would this situation work? The bulk of the current article is still that original material. I imagine you've faced this situation before; can you please post to the nomination page? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orlady. You know I've admired some of your work on Hillsdale where you sorted out ill-sourced content and did some tough copy editing. Because I saw that you understand some of the issues which arise in these articles about small, relatively unknown, institutions, it occurred to me you might be interested to have a look at the Mises Institute article and references as of a year ago. [9]. Despite all the denigration and resentment of the changes since then, I think it's clear that the article is in much better shape today. Why do these things stir up such strong resistance to change? I have no idea. Maybe as an experienced editor you have seen this many times. Anyway, I thought that year-old version might provide an interesting perspective. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I dunno. The current version has more prose and fewer unsourced lists presented without meaningful context, and it cites more third-party sources, but I'm not convinced that it's better overall. Changing the wording in the lead sentence from "an American libertarian academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and, political economy" to "an American tax-exempt organization" may have ended a dispute between editors, but it did not advance the cause of informing the reader. And some of the lists removed from that old version were informative. --Orlady (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And what about the lede section as a whole? I don't think the lists are a point of contention. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Motive

Please do not attribute motives.

"DS has not had the courtesy to acknowledge (much less respond to) the request I posted" is very different from "DS has not yet responded to the request I posted". DS (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, let me be more direct. I request that you amend your statement, as described. DS (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Stating that you were not courteous is not attributing a motive to you; if anything, it's indicating an absence of a particular motivation. In any event, I acknowledge that you have now acknowledged that I communicated to you, within less than 24 hours. --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Daylight Building (Knoxville, Tennessee)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

UNVA move to SD back on?

The info about their move to South Dakota showed back up on the UNVA website... jfeise (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Go figure... --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I have a Question

Hi, Orlady. I Just added a section to Tennessee State Route 22 on the freeway portion exit list which when and if Interstate 69 is completed it will become an auxiliary route of I-69, and now the question, I was wondering why on the exits/junctions with Tennessee State Route 431 it wasn't listing the article for Tennessee 431? If you go and look you will understand what i am talking about. ACase0000 (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer that. I think it may have something to do with how the "jct" template works.

The folks who can explain that sort of thing would be the members of WP:USROADS. Ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Also see Template talk:Jct -- the people who are active there are likely to know what's going on. --Orlady (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay Thank you ACase0000 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Stepan Shahumyan

Hi. Is it possible to place Stepan Shahumyan on permanent semi-protection? The article is being messed by a sock account. It is not possible to watch the article all the time, and the IP returns after a couple of months and reverts it to a very old version. I reported it here: [10], then here: [11], but it returned again in July to rv, which I missed due to inactivity at the time: [12]. I see no end to this, unless the article is permanently semi-protected. I mean, not for 1 or 2 months, but forever, or very long term. Thanks. Grandmaster 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for 3 months. Since the article has never been protected before and the anon has not been here recently, this is an unusual step. I justify it by the fact that the article is well-developed (although it needs sources), so it's not likely to benefit from drive-by edits from anons, and has fairly low visibility, so it's not getting a lot of attention from knowledgable regulars. --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see from the history of the article, the banned user returns after about one month after being reverted to sneakily rv it to his version, and since the article is not watched regularly by well established editors, he gets away with that. Let's see how it goes after 3 months. Regards, Grandmaster 09:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)