User talk:Orlady/Archive 10

Vardy CS

Thanks, Orlady, the DYK hook looks fine. This was indeed a good article with which to begin the new year. Bms4880 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Polaron

The editing restrictions are visible at User talk:Doncram#Please explain why both you and Polaron should not be blocked. As far as I'm concerned the meat of the agreement is EdJohnston's very concise proposal. Doncram and Polaron made a side deal, for which I requested clarification at User talk:Doncram#Poquetanuck redux. It amounts to various conditions agreed between them at Talk:Poquetanuck concerning merges, and while it's useful, I don't think it's universally applicable. As all this was developing I discovered that the NRHP nominations for Connecticut had been posted at the NPS. I have used this documentation in forming my opinion on the feasibility of merging vs. splitting. Appropriate source material makes me more comfortable with a moderately liberal attitude toward separate NRHP articles (in CT only), at least more so than before the sources became available. I see your discussions at Georgetown. I agree that a separate article must sustain more than a list of properties, but if Doncram can develop material concerning the demolition of historic properties, it could be an interesting article. I did much the same at Giant Forest Lodge Historic District, in which nothing but trees now exist. Acroterion _(talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Colonial revivalism

I know u took an interest at American colonial architecture terminology before. I notice a lot of related category name edits going on in articles and eventually noticed that the article Colonial revival architecture name had changed, i think without discussion, and then the editor proceeded with category name change edits in articles. If the category name change edits are misguided, perhaps it is more efficient for them to be reverted immediately before other edits come in? I wonder if you could comment at User talk:The Man in Question#Colonial revivalism and/or offer other guidance. doncram (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it your sense that i could use wp:rollback to do those reversions quickly? I think that tool is for reverting vandalism, and i'm not sure i want to label the edits as that. I am not sure if and how AWB, which i use only occasionally and not recently, would facilitate doing "Undo" and/or allow me to work on a set of contributions by one user. doncram (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually i think the following clause says it would be okay: "Provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually." I'm gonna proceed with that, unless i hear otherwise. doncram (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, too. The info you provided, plus allowing me to check about use of rollback with you, emboldened me. When i went back to the editor's talk page i didnt mention ur experience but i was informed and able to act. Tx, --doncram (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback to WikiDan

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jairam Ramesh

Regarding your Third opinion, I followed your suggestion and converted many quotes to prose. Kept those stating most important policy positions. Expansion is now 6.56x. Marcus334 (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Auburn Cord Duesenberg Automobile Museum

Please note that the A-C-D Museaum, although a National Historic Landmark, is not in an "historic district." The Category:Historic districts in Indiana is not appropriate. Cuppysfriend (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Cuppysfriend's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. --Cuppysfriend (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Council Grove HD

Hmm, interesting; I'd gone by the address only without checking the coords. Thanks for the correction. I'll get back to you after I look at the Kansas State Historical Society's website: they have pictures and nomination forms for most sites. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the coords — they don't reflect the location of any of the six contributing properties. See here for the nomination form — everything's along the highway downtown except for one set of Santa Fe Trail ruts well east of the city. Perhaps the coords represent a compromise of all the coords for all six CPs? At any rate, Council Oak in the picture you found is one of the contributing "properties". Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Vardy Community School

On January 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vardy Community School, which you nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons talk

I don't know if you receive notifications about messages on your Commons' talk page, but I've left you a note there regarding the categorization scheme of NRHP files on Commons. Killiondude (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning

Some may have unknowingly included Senate of Serampore College (University) and its affiliated institutions in this list. For validity of the Senate of Serampore College (University) kindly refer to the following articles / sites:

• Government of India - Ministry of Human Resource Development

Three Missionaries, Carey, Marshman and Ward started the first Mission college at Serampore in 1818, and 9 years later it received a charter from the King of Denmark empowering it to grant degree. [1]

• The Hindu - National Newspaper of India

In fact, Frederick the Sixth, the King of Denmark, presented a charter to the college on February 23, 1827, with the University status. It was the first college in India to receive this status. ...Almost a century later, the charter was endorsed officially under the Bengal Govt Act IV of 1918. [2]

• The Senate of Serampore College (University) Site

University under Section 2 (f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [3]

• Article on Ch. Vasantha Rao

...was Senior Visiting Scholar at Harvard University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grbpradeep (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Impartial advice request

Hi Orlady: As you are a neutral party who's worked on the Family Foundation School article for some time, I'd like to ask your input on a question about the program section here; the other neutral editor Sinneed has so far not become involved in that part of the discussion. Thank you in advance for your guidance. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're probably already aware of it, but in case you aren't: the edit that you made here was revered by User:Flyboi9. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh!

Thank you Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at my RFA

Thank you for a very well thought out, heartfelt comment. In general, I do have quite a lot of respect for people who can actually research and write content, but I understand the "walk a mile in his shoes" argument. I'm sorry that you found that AFD annoying; it wasn't my intent (as you obviously know since you're down there in neutral). I'll consider what you said carefully, whether or not the RFA blows up in my face. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are game to try your hand at content, I'd like to suggest that some types of content are easier to create than others. It's much harder, IMO, to write a decent article on (for example) a scientific/technical topic than it is to write an article on (for example) a notable person who has been the subject of multiple published obituaries. In order to "walk a mile in the shoes" of a content creator, I suggest that you try your hand at fixing a problematic article about a topic with a fairly clearly defined scope (such as a person or a company) -- or drafting a new article about such a topic. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, but I'll probably end up ignoring it :) If/when I try my hand at it, it will probably be a technical topic; the articles in my general area of interest are not in great shape, and I've always felt that someone should really do something about it. If it wasn't for those pesky WP:RS and WP:V policies, I could whip them into shape, just with what I know off the top of my head, but the time associated with collecting and reading references, and (worse) setting aside a block of time to treat it seriously, has eluded me so far.

Perhaps I shall take your comments as an unintended invitation to pester you with writing questions if I ever get around to doing this. In any case, thanks for the advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your spiteful, shitty, uneducated, ignorant, cuntesque, wankbagness

Although I violently insulted you as above, as this is my genuine opinion of your foolish, reactionary actions; I do implore you to actually review my edits rather than relying on "consensus" to scare away editors with thirty years of recognised, published, research experience in the relevant field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.36 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew that journals published research by recognised experts who use IP addresses for names! This is a brave new world, in which responsible adults with reputations to uphold use names like 79.97.166.36 and express themselves with what used to be called "off-color" language. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I confess that the next-to-last one was new to me. - Sinneed 22:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a portmanteau word, probably newly created by the anon, combining a well-known four-letter vulgarism with the word ending "esque." --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Orlady! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Keith Buckley (actor) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... That's actually content that I rescued from Keith Buckley, where User:Dr. Blofeld had created it and another user had overwritten it with content about a different person by the same name. I'll alert Dr. Blofeld to this concern. --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning - Focus on the Content

In reference to your recent posts on the Family Foundation School talk page:

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the section and see no failure to wp:assume good faith, nor violation of wp:no personal attacks. While I understand the frustration of the person using this wp:single purpose account, these warnings seem inappropriate.- Sinneed 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos?

Just curious — do you have a camera? You're active enough with WP:NRHP, but I almost never see new pictures for Tennessee, except for ones from User:Bms :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

You've messaged what I guess would be whatever Wikipedia tracks this computer as. My edits have been few and very minor. I don't understand how correcting grammar can result as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reluctant Zero (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are talking about a message that I placed on the talk page for an anonymous IP. If the message wasn't recent, it probably was intended for somebody else who was previously assigned that IP. (I speak from experience. A few weeks ago, I was notified of a warning message on "my" talk page. When I clicked on the notification, I realized that my login had just expired, and I was looking at an IP user talk page with a vandalism warning that had been sent roughly 2 years earlier to whoever was assigned the IP at that time.) If it was more recent, give me more details about the message and I'll try my best to respond intelligently... --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Inuvik Boot Lake

Hi Orlady, I have responded to your concerns over at T:TDYK. Are you able to give it another look? Thanks! JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgewater Vandalism

They (gnative)are back at it(vandalism) on the Edgewater article, Jefferson High School's article and Denver metro area high schools. This seems like it is going to be a job for an editor to determine what is neutral, fair and accurate for these articles. Thanks for your help. Dbkilo (talk)

Your right,good advice!I assumed it was the same person(s) who've been vandalizing these pages for the last year.Dbkilo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Orlady/Archive 10, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Refactored this message a bit. thanks, hoping to hear from you. Ikip 17:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

personal attack type statements

I just want to register that i consider this edit to be another instance of too-personal, negative commenting by you about me. It is unfriendly at least to challenge me and my interest in CT articles in the way you did there. By the way, out of P, you, and me, I have pretty good reason to believe that you are the one with the least real-life CT experience, by far.

We have gone around on this before, and others certainly do not like to see the personalized contention. Please try to dial back a bit, and I will continue to try in this vein as well. --doncram (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems I exaggerated when I said that was the "umpteenth" time I had pointed out that Connecticut doesn't have "hamlets" (I haven't been nearly as annoying a nag about this topic as I thought!), but I am still plenty tired of your contemptuous attitude toward certain topics and the contributors who care about them. For the record, here are two previous places where I commented on the absence of "hamlets" in Connecticut:

• 22 October 2009: Additionally, regarding your comments on point 6, if this proposal is specific to Connecticut, it should not use the word "hamlet," as that is a geographic term that is not used in Connecticut.
• 27 October 2009: Please stop using the word "hamlet" to refer to Connecticut villages, neighborhoods, and sections of town. The word "hamlet" is used in some U.S. jurisdictions, but not Connecticut.

Additionally, you have repeatedly attacked the use of the word "section" in discussions of Connecticut places -- and you have attacked Polaron for using that word. On 10 January 2010 at Talk:Glenville Historic District, you expressed your negative attitude toward the wikilinked locution "neighborhood or section," which is truly the way areas like Glenville are described in Connecticut. I said: "...The HD article says the HD is in the "neighborhood/village/hamlet" of Glenville and does not link to any of these terms -- I don't know how a reader who does not contribute to Wikipedia would receive that, but to me it says that the person who created the article thinks of Glenville as a "something or other" and has not yet bothered to figure out what terminology is appropriate." You replied "I do indeed think of Glenville as a "something or other", and I linked to the article about that topic. It would be nice if you or someone else would figure out what it is..." Comments like that appear to me to be both indications of your lack of knowledge and expressions of contempt toward the topic of places in Connecticut, and cannot understand why a person would insist on controlling articles about topics about which they seem to have little knowledge and much contempt.

As for your statement, "By the way, out of P, you, and me, I have pretty good reason to believe that you are the one with the least real-life CT experience, by far," I interpret it as a notification that you are working on "outing" me. Please use e-mail to communicate any evidence or observations that you wish to confront me with. --Orlady (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh???? I can't speak to your fear or interest or whatever in your being "outed". My request, plainly put, is that you dial back your personalized contention, not for you to repeat it or extend it by new insults here. About hamlets, sections, or villages, whatever, I don't believe there are any authorities present who can dictate that "hamlet"--an English language word which is more precise in some contexts than other ill-defined ones--can or cannot be used to describe any places in Connecticut in mainspace or in Talkspace. As for the mainspace content issues, if you had some authority on that I would be happy to see you add it to the pretty sorry, undocumented article or section on CT towns/hamlets/sections, whatever. I have previously asked once or twice whether you would agree to some more formal mediation/arbitration process to deal with your interactions with me, and you have declined. Please consider my contacting you here to be one more polite enough request for you to stop with personalized, negative comments. I don't wish to contend by email, either, but if you have something pressing to say to me that should not be posted publicly, I guess I would prefer to receive it by email rather than having it splashed publicly. --doncram (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, if you're not working on outing her, then what exactly did you mean by "I have pretty good reason to believe that you are the one with the least real-life CT experience"? That's easily interpreted as "I have information on you." Bms4880 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[EC -- Bms4880 has already made part of the point I am making here]

Having once been the target of a nasty "outing" initiative, I am relieved to know that there was no such intent behind your statement "...Out of P, you, and me, I have pretty good reason to believe that you are the one with the least real-life CT experience, by far." But if you're not investigating me, I can't explain why you said you "have pretty good reason to believe".

You are correct that "hamlet" is a generic term, although in its generic usage it generally refers to very small rural settlements (see the lead paragraph of Hamlet (place)), not to urban and suburban neighborhoods or to villages the size of most of the New England examples. If your use of this term for Connecticut places had been limited to talk page discussions about small unofficial places in general, I would not object to it. However, when you persist in using it as a main noun in the lead sentences of articles whose sources nowhere use this word and in the "official" statement of your "Poquetanuck agreement" -- and complain that you can't make any sense out of language (like "neighborhood or section") that accurately reflects local usage, it suggests the contempt that I have perceived in your comments. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to have some big argument here. This is not a RFC/user on your or my behavior. I have to note irony in your asserting a contemptuous tone in my sometimes labelling a Connecticut place as a "hamlet/section/village/whatever" or equivalent, when I did not myself know how to label it more precisely, or my persisting to do so when others made unsupported assertions about them knowing what it is. Orlady, you are the Wikipedian I have most often seen using apparent sarcasm, which IMO usually equates to showing contempt for others, in Talk page and Edit summaries. And I feel like I am frequently a victim of you heaping contempt in my direction. By this discussion section here, I was giving you notice, calling attention to the fact that I feel your edit in a Requested Move discussion that was otherwise civil, seemed to be crossing a line towards personalized commentary, which, frankly, was contemptuous towards me.

To respond to Bms4880 and anyone else, yes, I do have reason to believe that Orlady has less personal experience in Connecticut than Polaron or myself. You don't have to read anything ominous into that, and your interpreting anything else into it has probably more to do with your own self than anything I intended or anything that most people would interpret. But to spell it out more: it happens that Orlady and Polaron and some others have been discussing Connecticut NRHP article issues over a seven month period now over hundreds of articles and many thousands of Talk page comments. During this, from time to time Orlady and Polaron have made comments about their connections in the state, whether visiting friends in or living in or otherwise having some experience in the state, or having themselves personally seen a "Welcome to X Historic District" sign or not. Often this was in the context of trying to support an argument that their personal knowledge was accurate, despite lack of reliable sources, on some point, or that their personal knowledge was better than someone else's. And I also notice during this when any one of us adds pictures or fails to add pictures or otherwise shows evidence of familiarity with the state. In the seven months of discussion, I have not chosen to try to assert credentials towards winning an argument based on my own personal knowledge regarding Connecticut (or i cannot remember ever doing so). Please consider the fact, though, that I am in a much better position to know the extent of my own Connecticut experience than is Orlady. She also is in a better position to know her own experience, of course. So what if I choose to state my estimation that I have more personal knowledge than she does. I did that by way of responding to her contemptuous comments regarding me and what she believes to be my less-knowledgeable-than-her status. doncram (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the invitation to bet money on this matter, Doncram. That would have been a very inappropriate use of Wikipedia.
I happen to interpret your numerous statements about your acknowledged lack of information regarding various Connecticut topics -- for example, your repeated assertions that there is no "downtown Hartford" and your repeated objections to "section of town" terminology (which, BTW, is briefly explained in Administrative divisions of Connecticut#Village, neighborhood, section of town, a section that I think is accurate, although unfortunately it is unsourced) -- as indicating that you have little experience with the state (if you had much experience there, you would know that Hartford has a downtown and that "section of" is a common part of Connecticut parlance).
As for behavior, you have repeatedly labeled me a "bully," yet you have exhibited a pattern of behavior that I consider to be classic bully behavior: in schoolyard terms (it's not hard to see the Wikipedia parallels), this involves drawing a line in the sand, saying "I dare you to cross this line," then engaging in some behavior that predictably will incite a "cross the line" reaction by the person challenged -- after which the bully attacks the person who crossed the line (often while crying out "teacher, he hit me!"). I initially got involved in your battles with Polaron largely because I already had some of those Connecticut articles on my watchlist and I noticed behavior that suggested that you had chosen him to be your latest preferred victim. I do not like to stand by idly watching when I see other people getting victimized by bullies. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i understand that your involvement in the CT mess has been partially motivated by your wishing to protect P from what you have perceived and/or characterized as bullying by me. It is similar in some ways to my once taking an interest in responding to what i perceived as bullying behavior by you in another case. As you know, I perceive your determined involvement in the CT mess to have considerably complicated and extended it, while i am sure you disagree. Let's agree to disagree about many things. Please note, i asked you here in this discussion to tone it down about personalized, negative comments. That's all I am asking right now. I am not trying to draw a line which challenges you into making new/more personalized, negative comments, and particularly not in content discussions at Talk pages of mainspace articles. Please note I am trying in this edit to convey acknowledgement at least in terms of saying i hear you saying what you are saying. I have said, now maybe a few times, what i meant to say. I probably won't respond further here. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: George Koval

Exactly what are these sources you are referring to? Changing content without changing sources is misleading and inappropriate. The source I used, namely [4] says "Koval was assigned to Oak Ridge. There, Koval's good fortune seemed only to build on itself, almost like a nuclear reaction: he was made a "health physics officer," charged with monitoring radiation levels throughout the sprawling facility." Someone wikilinked Oak Ridge to the wrong one, but the source says nothing about additional facilities and sites. As to the image, "a calutron is a mass spectrometer..." If you have problems with diction, that's one thing. But unless you bring up these other sources you've consulted, you're performing original research. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 05:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bethel Valley Church

Is there a way to get to this church? A rather imposing checkpoint was blocking Bethel Valley Road, coming from the north. Bms4880 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no public access. I'll take some pictures there some time. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! Bms4880 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Task is complete. (Thumbnail inserted here -- and on county National Register list.) --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"I have a camera, but I'm not particularly interested in photographing historic properties" — I guess you are occasionally, however :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You caught me! As it happens, that's the only self-made picture I've ever uploaded to Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha :-) Will this be the first of many such pictures, or is it more likely to be the first and the last? Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not likely to be the last, but I expect that my contributions will be few and far between. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The photo looks great. I'll just ignore the second half of the above statement and assume you'll be getting the Jones House, Freels Cabin, and that last checking station, which are all about 5-10 minutes from the church. Bms4880 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be, but I'm not going to promise anything. Access to Freels Cabin is more restricted than access to New Bethel Church (it's not behind an "imposing checkpoint", but it's behind fences with locked gates. I'm pretty sure I know the building listed as the Jones house, but not completely sure (and it's not real easy to get to, but it's not restricted access). The checking station is on a major thoroughfare, but that means it takes some effort to find a safe place to photograph it from. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While you're in the Wikimedia Commons mood, you might want to get a picture of the Alexander Inn, which is shown here. It says it's on the register, but I don't see it listed in the NRIS system. Bms4880 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Alexander is a contributing property in the Oak Ridge Historic District, which is already illustrated (at least two other contributing properties have articles). The Alexander is in a severe state of disrepair. I have some photos of it, but they're mostly close-ups of the property condition -- nothing you'd want to see in an encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

harassment type edits

Hi Orlady -- I am revisiting your talk page to ask that you please do not follow me around in my edits to new areas, as over the last day or two to Riverview Terrace Historic District‎, an article in progress with an Indiana editor. I believe you follow my Talk page and may be aware of how i responded to a request to help the editor get started. Your interrupting with non-constructive (in my view) edits that I have reverted several times is not helpful. The editor that I have been helping there, also asked you to stop and/or to explain why. There is no explanation worth dragging that editor into.

As I have previously mentioned, I regard your determined involvement in the CT NRHP issues as also generally unhelpful but I am sure will stay involved there, and I am accepting of that. However, this is an extension to a new area, and it seems more like wp:wikihounding than anything else.

I think it is possible we are headed for ARBCOM one of these days. This is my request that you avoid that and stop following me around. You have previously been warned by others, and asked by me, to stop with that. You have alternatively denied and admitted to following me around. Please. --doncram (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I note in an edit summary there u admit to using Rollback, which you have previously instructed me on the appropriate use of. You are an administrator, specifically knowledgeable about Rollback, and you know that it is not appropriate. --doncram (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been searching article space for occurrences of "the district has some significance" and "substantially similar", and I will continue to do so as long as I have the impression that articles are being peppered with meaningless dreck. I consider this content-free placeholder wording ("some significance") and wording that has no discernible meaning in the context and is not supported by any source ("substantially similar") to be tantamount to vandalism. I will defend that view if you insist on taking this to ANI, ARBCOM, or wherever.

As for the rollback, after doing a half-dozen essentially identical "undos" at an hour way past my bedtime, I used "rollback" for the very last one, assuming that you and Polaron were the only audience for my repetitive edit summaries. (As noted, I see this wording as tantamount to vandalism.) Unfortunately, I happened to do that on an article that was also being followed by another contributor. Mea culpa -- slap me with a trout. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An admin who ignores 3RR, how nice. CTJF83 chat 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. I contend that repeated insertion into article space of placeholder sentences like "The district has some significance" (and worse "The district has some significance...") is, for all intents and purposes, vandalism. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think that is vandalism, how did you ever become an admin? "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." CTJF83 chat 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The user who has made those changes (not just in the article that Ctjf83 is interested in) has been told repeatedly why those changes are inappropriate -- and harmful to the integrity of the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well those are the only changes I'm aware of. I agree that more needs to be added to his addition, as to why it specifically is significant. But I don't see it being vandalism at all. And since I know nothing about you two, or your involvement with each other, I can't verify if you are actually harassing him or not. CTJF83 chat 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of history here. For part of it, see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive16#repeated violation of editing restriction. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Either way, it doesn't excuse 3RR violations and false accusations of vandalism. CTJF83 chat 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You have violated the three-revert rule on Riverview Terrace Historic District. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. CTJF83 chat 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, i opened a 3rr violation report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may wish to comment. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Orlady. If you join the discussion at WP:AN3 and promise to stop warring on this article, you may be able to avoid sanctions. I myself am quite discouraged that nothing has worked to calm down this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue with that particular article appears to be moot, as another user has replaced the meaningless placeholder sentence that I "commented out" with some actual meaningful content. I don't think the problematic placeholder statement is likely to be reinserted.

I don't hold out a lot of hope for long-term peace with Doncram, given the history that goes back about 2 years. --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take responsibility for your actions and not blame them all on Doncram. CTJF83 chat 05:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram. While the RFC is named for him alone, I would expect that your behavior would be discussed as well. I would encourage you to participate in a civil manner in this discussion, in hopes of finding a reasonable resolution. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've begun to put together an outline for an RfC on the NRHP content disputes at User:Acroterion/RfC NRHP, to be moved to some more appropriate place once it's developed. I'll be working on it in between bouts of snow shoveling, and you're encouraged to contribute as you desire. Acroterion _(talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Worcester

This is just to let you know that I have removed the hatnote you place on the University of Worcester article. I don't think there is much danger of anyone being confused here. The article has been around for five years without one, and it doesn't do muc , particularly with the chosen wording, to enhance the article. --Kudpung (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Help me, please,

with something I'd like to know about T:TDYK. You are a regular there, aren't you? If so — the backlog of unreviewed articles is big enough that I'd like to help clearing it, but I'm not sure what they want. Would regulars mind my just jumping in and reviewing some? Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the situation.

There is a backlog of hooks these days, but the review process is moving pretty smoothly right now, based on the table at Template:Did you know/Queue, which shows that over 100 hooks are reviewed and ready to insert into hook sets. There's been an abundance of hooks for the past several weeks -- I assume the high rate of production was correlated with university holiday breaks. I have been expecting hook production to slacken, and I think that's happening now (not so long ago, the numbers were higher)... --Orlady (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yeah, the list is definitely shorter than it was a few weeks ago; I had three DYKs in five days (Daniel E. Krause Stone Barn, Deffenbaugh Site, and Bedford Village Archeological Site) in late January, and I had to check up on each of them for nearly two weeks. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We definitely don't mind others reviewing! Shubinator (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As for jumping in, the regulars won't mind. Just follow the rules! Shubinator's DYKcheck thingie (I have it as a widget on my toolbox menu, and I don't remember right now where he distributes it) is a big help for checking article length, 5x expansion, and hook length. Articles should not be tagged as stubs, should not have bare-URL references, and should be reasonably well supported by source citations (loose rule of thumb is at least one ref per paragraph). As for hooks, DYK looks for (1) catchy hooks (interesting facts -- not every suitably long article has one, IMO) and (2) solid inline sourcing (in the article) for the hook fact(s). Images should be free (or logos, in some cases), visually interesting at the necessary scale, and used in the article that the hook is derived from. --Orlady (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thought: The majority of my DYK contributions were made when I had a DYK submission pending. When visiting the project to check up on the progress of my submissions, I typically review other pending submissions, build new hook sets, and/or review and approve hook sets. --Orlady (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

North Denver

Can you take a look at North Denver, North West Side (Denver), and West Denver. I think that the content in these articles inst neutral and misleading, and inaccurate. Almost all the information contained in these articles are un sourced. Even the title of these articles are un sourced. It's as if these articles are actually creating geographical locations rather than collecting facts about an existing geographical location. It gives the impression that these sections of Denver are actually separate cities rather than a section. The sections of the Denver already have articles (Denver Neighborhoods, IE Sloans Lake). Thank you for your help. Dbkilo (talk)

FYI, I'm confused by one of Dbkilo's comments — in my opinion, such simple names as "North" and "West" (no opinion on "NW Side") aren't neologisms; we surely don't need sources to say that the parts of Denver that are farthest up and to the left on a map are the northern and western parts of the city respectively. Definite boundaries, of course, will require sources, but not the idea that there's a northern region and a western region. By the way, the city has well-defined boundaries for its individual neighborhoods; for all I know, Denver's neighborhoods may be grouped officially into clusters such as "north" or "west" or "northwest". I'm suspecting that we could find plenty of good sources for the idea of a "West Denver", since the South Platte River runs through the city, and the part on the western bank is far smaller than the part on the eastern bank. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look at the articles, it seems to me that the biggest problem is boundaries: if we could find a reliable source for each region consisting of a specific cluster of neighborhoods, the rest would fall into place. Lacking that, everything falls apart, but I would guess that it's possible to find such sources. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Street system of Denver anything North of Ellsworth ST is considered North Any thing south of Ellsworth is considered South. Anything west of Broadway is considered West and anything East of Broadway is considered East. So in theory the border's of North Denver would Ellsworth St to the south and the existing Denver City borders to the West East and North. The only grouping of neighborhoods I am familiar with are the police districts 1-6. The North Denver article references everything in police District 1 and even has a map of district 1, But District 1 is only a portion of North Denver, technically all 6 police districts are part of North Denver. I think what Gnative is referencing are what people on the street (IE gangs) consider the west side, east side, and north side. When it comes to those definitions the North side is district 1 and the east side is district 2, ect. But I don't think those definitions are actually documented or recognized. The borders are only one of the issues. When the majority have statements are researched, the sources don't line up with the information or its untrue for example the North West Side article reads "Edgewood (a combination of edgewater and northeast Lakewood)" This cannot be sourced because it is not true. It also refers to Edgewater as neighborhood, when in fact it is a City. When the content is researched it inst accurate or it cannot be found (sourced)(Dbkilo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

I think I see what Dbkilo is bothered about -- these articles seem to be heavy on original research and light on third-party reliable sourcing. However, like Nyttend, I think these monikers might be legitimate. Most cities have formal or informal names for various "sides" of town. These are areas that typically include multiple neighborhoods, and these "side"-type areas may span official city boundaries. I did find one semi-authoritative source for the regions described articles: http://www.denvergov.org/aboutdenver/today_neighborhoodinfo.asp . That map could be used as a sourced basis for some of the regions described in those articles, but in general might be best to limit their content to short general descriptions of "Northwest Denver" (for example), with links to the more specific articles about individual neighborhoods.

I've been to Denver several times, but I can't pretend to "know" the city. Looking for authoritative info on the named geographic areas of Denver, here's some of the other content I found:

• There does seem to be an official list of neighborhoods, based on the City List of "Neighborhoods" used for statistics on crime and other topics, City Map of those "neighborhoods", and Piton Foundation Neighborhoods list and map. Some of these may be "real" (organic) neighborhoods, but a few of the individual maps make me think they divided the city into a set of arbitrary polygons, then gave names to those polygons.
• Profiles of a few neighborhoods - These are definitely organic neighborhoods.
• Map of Denver Historic Landmarks and Landmark Districts - Some (but not all) of the named landmark districts are clearly "true" neighborhoods. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Denver is already broke up into sections and they are broke up in the neighborhood format, and the neighborhoods are how areas of the city are officially referenced rather than North, East, West, and South format. Obviously there are North, South, East, and West areas of the city. The existing neighborhoods already have articles such as Five Points, West Colfax, Sun Valley, Sloan's Lake, Baker and so on. I don't mind the North, West, and North West Denver articles, I just feel they need to be accurate, factual and sourced.There doesn't seem to be away to distinguish what is North, East, South and West other than the Street system of Denverwhich breaks up the city into South, North, East, and West.Dbkilo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Well, http://www.denvergov.org/aboutdenver/today_neighborhoodinfo.asp shows some historic definitions for labels like Northwest, Northeast, South, and East. These don't appear to be strictly correlated with the street system. --Orlady (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You can find a better map site for neighborhoods at http://www.denvergov.org/denvermaps/report.asp?rpt=ccust&cat=ccust. I can't say about Denver (all I've seen, other than the interstates, is downtown and the neighborhoods immediately surrounding it), but I know that Pittsburgh has official neighborhood boundaries that are well known (all street signs tell you what neighborhood they're in), so I expect that at least Pittsburgh's official neighborhood boundaries are used by locals. I know it's not exactly the same way in Denver (see here for street signs that say nothing of the neighborhood; I think it's in North Capitol Hill, but I'm not sure), but I'd not be surprised if they're used somewhat. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay http://www.denvergov.org/aboutdenver/today_neighborhoodinfo.asp seems to be reasonable, at least there is now a source to work off of and build these articles properly. So amybe those articles need to be appropriately named North West Denver North East Denver, and South Denevr. The neighborhoods in Denver are marked at the boundaries with signs to let you know which neighborhood your about to enter although they are not every single entry/exit point they are at all the major ones.Dbkilo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

I'm not sure exactly why this conversation is being had on a user page as opposed to the North Denver talk page. My main arguments are posted there. Nothing in this section convinces me that the article should not be deleted. Note that the map you linked to refers to historic Denver not the modern ideas of Denver. I suppose you could kind of make a case by using the city council district maps (http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/81/documents/Revised_Final_Districts.pdf), but as you can see by viewing, even those boundaries do not easily fit into "northwest," "southwest," etc. (District 9 in particular is difficult to view in such a manner). I think Wikipedia already has plenty of Denver articles without needing these vague, superfluous, regional, ones. Vertigo700 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Chilltown

Even if the url worked, there's no way that that term was noteworthy enough to qualify for an article, as I also indicated. Since when do nicknames for cities belong anywhere but in the article for that city, even when properly sourced? Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I share your view about the article, but I still don't think it qualified as a speedy deletion.

As it happens, though, properly sourced nicknames are the subject of list articles like List of city nicknames in New Jersey and a few nicknames have their own articles (examples include Hockeytown and ManchVegas). --Orlady (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

List of RHPs in ID

I really don't see how the naming is an issue. After all — except for the lists themselves, everything NRHP-related is simply "NRHP in ____"; q.v. Category:National Register of Historic Places in Idaho or {{National Register of Historic Places in New York}}. We don't always say that nothing may be bolded except for the exact title of the article. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Orlady,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Coopers Corners, New Rochelle

Hello there. I work with OTRS and I have just received a very panicked email from the person who created this article, and apparently the website in question ([www.newrochellenews.info]) has been involved in trouble before? Could you please let me know what is going on so that I can reply appropriately? I have been in correspondence with this person via OTRS for some time and I'd hate to think they've been deliberately misleading me. Thank you in advance! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your answers and its very interesting you have ancestors who belonged to the church there! There are several fine maps that show individual's holdings in the area and several great books covering the church's history (unfortunately most of the books of this topic in Google Books are restricted or have not yet been scanned in). I can pass on some of the links to the maps if you wish to look them over for any family members and see where there houses and lands were, many of the old farmhouses still stand surrounded by suburban development.Camelbinky (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP PROMOTING SLANDEROUS and UNPROVEN ACCUSATIONS AS FACT

You are continually editing the Elan School entry to alter the article to your own point of view or the point of view of others. This article should remain neutral, as stated in the terms of Wikipedia. Your repeated attempts to add in "un-proven" information is defamous and you should be banned. In fact, you have reversed the changes I have made at least 10 times, well in violation of 3rr; however, I see this is not something new for you... and you are well aware of 3rr and choose to disregard the rules. I will see to it that you are banned for misconduct if you continue. Bradymills (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:Bradymills. --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewcheck, dew point meters are called hygrometers. -Atmoz (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

bullying etc comments

I don't really want to have a discussion, but I said at the "big issues list" that i would open discussion here. Mainly i want for there not to be personally-oriented, negative comments there. You posed it in form of several questions, but i think you are suggesting that I am bullying Polaron. What i said, and your response:

P, I don't understand what you mean in saying that the neighborhoods are all the same and "all should be treated the same way." They're all different. Some include portions of NRHP HDs, some do not. There are NRHP HDs which span into more than one neighborhood. It's complicated and takes time to sort out relationships, and the sorting out is best done IMO by developing the articles (and for the NRHP material to be developed in separate NRHP HD articles). I don't get what kind of neighborhood article you envision. Is there any example, say from a different city, that you have in mind? I don't think A is going to be in a position, anytime soon, to come to any great ruling on merger vs. split for all of these, and I think we should just work ahead. Two weeks has gone by since discussion of Westville Village Historic District, Winchester Repeating Arms Company Historic District, Wooster Square Historic District, and others. 'Would you pick one or two to develop, in some timeframe, like a further 2 weeks, or a month, or what would you need? Again I will even try to help you if you do it in mainspace or a userpage. For the others, or for all if you do not want to do that, I will proceed along the lines of the Poq. agreement which sets a useful default (which in all these New Haven neighborhood cases, is to allow separate articles to be developed). --doncram (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, are you aware of what you are doing when you write comments (like the one above) that say (in essence): "Do what I say, or else"? You have on several occasions accused me of being a bully. Do you recognize "Do what I say, or else" statements as bullying behavior?

You note that 2 weeks had gone by since discussion of several of the New Haven historic districts, but during most of that time the National Register nom forms were not available electronically. Even if Polaron were your employee working at your personal beck and call (he isn't), it wouldn't be reasonable to expect him to have researched and written the articles that you want him to write, unless he already had copies of those nom forms.

As for those specific HDs, a couple of weeks back I spent a little bit of time working on the Newhallville article, which is where the Winchester Arms HD should be documented. The nom form that was prepared in 1987 should not be used as the sole source of an article about either the neighborhood or the HD, as there have been major changes in the area during the 22+ years since 1987. Portions of the gun factory complex (which is the central feature of the HD) were still operating then, but are now completely closed down. Also, some buildings in the HD have been gutted and converted to new uses, I believe that others have been torn down and replaced, some buildings are empty and derelict, and there have been big changes in some of the nearby residential streets, some of which are also in the HD. There's even a complicated story to be told of companies that moved in and later moved out, redevelopment plans that were started and abandoned, new redevelopment plans, and Yale University's shifting role in the whole scene. An article about the HD that is based solely on the 1987 nom form would not tell a valid story. --Orlady (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, I'll comment at your talk page about suggestions of bad faith. About these, the nom docs are available now, and I asked P how much time he would want to take. If you yourself don't want to go with the Poq. agreement for one or two or all three of these last ones remaining, would you like to take on the task of developing merged articles that give at least a DYK-worth of coverage of the NRHP HD? If neither P nor you want to take that on, then I think the productive thing to do is to start separate stub articles and allow development of substantial material by NRHP-interested editors. That's my judgment of what is best for developing wikipedia here. --doncram (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Doncram, but I'm not aware of the conversation in which you asked Polaron about his plans. I only saw this conversation.

To respond to your last comment, it was right there that i was asking Polaron --the quote is verbatim except i bolded it within the above.

My point here is that this is an instance of a) your accusing me of bullying and b) of your accusing me of accusing you of bullying. You're the one making accusations. Let's just stop that, please. --doncram (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea of "bullying" never occurred to until after you accused me of it. I guess my memory is longer than yours. Here is one diff to jog your memory: April 8, 2009. I think you repeated and elaborated upon the accusation in later comments you made on that page, but that was the first diff in which the word "bully" appeared on that particular page.

As for the above-quoted exchange, I still do not read your comments to Polaron as a polite query. I read it as saying "I don't accept your position, but I'm willing to give you two weeks or possibly up to a month to incorporate historic district details into the neighborhood articles to my standards. For any historic districts that you don't document to my satisfaction by that deadline, I will create new HD stubs, even though you say that separate articles are inappropriate." --Orlady (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't stop you from reading completely different interpretations into what i write. That's your issue. It seems sometimes you see red when you read my comments, and that pretty often your anger is fed by your being convinced that I must be wrong about some fact that I have stated (e.g. perhaps the Cathcart AFD discussion), or it is complicated by your not having read what i wrote (perhaps Cathcart, here). Perhaps some misunderstandings would be avoided if you would read what i wrote, and consider it, rather than replying immediately.

About your further edit there, that seems like another unnecessary, personal insult, in a working checklist page within A's talk space meant to be for short factual discussion about CT places. (I acknowledge the page has grown to be for a bit more than stated, but I am sure that A does not want personal attacks back and forth there.)

About the accusations of bullying, I did indeed bring up what i had perceived as bullying by you in your RFA. It was not unreasonable for me to bring that up there. In fact it was highly relevant and many participants in your RFA agreed. However, I was the first to congratulate you after a bureaucrat closed the RFA with approval for your adminship. I thot then that you and i would close the books on the previous contention. About my interactions with you and Polaron recently in the CT NRHP discussion, i think it is highly relevant, and not in any sense anything like bullying, to ask you and Polaron whether you would write some content, rather than just seek to control what NRHP-interested editors including me might choose to do in actually developing hte wikipedia in this area.

I am ambivalent about talking out further here. If you're not interested in developing articles about CT NRHPs, and if you often don't like my contributions in wikipedia, i would think you and i could just have separate editing careers in wikipedia without crossing paths much. (As a total aside, there is a Get Fuzzy cartoon today which reminded me of the situation here. Since u've spoken of getting warm and fuzzy before. Please don't read too much into the cartoon, but it did remind me of the situation here.) --doncram (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Steel (singer)

On March 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Steel (singer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

stop making stupid edits on the sizzurp page

I don't know who you are or what your deal is, but you randomly came out of the woodwork to screw up wiki pages. Looking over this page, you seem to be arrogant, think you're right 100% of the time, and never concede to anyone else's points. I don't know why you all of a sudden decided to start playing with sizzurp pages, since you tend to focus on schools and forests and what not, but just like the articles about schools and forests and whatever, you're driving the sizzurp article into the ground with stupid points that aren't credible at all. LOCAL NEWS STATION "quotes" are NOT considered to be reliable by 99% of the users on wiki. Stop citing them as absolute proof that you're right of anything. If you decide to make another edit to the sizzurp wiki page, discuss it first without editing it.. otherwise you seem like a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the page history statistics, I have made 244 edits to the purple drank page, beginning in January 2008. I've reverted vandalism, found and cited sources, and done a lot of other maintenance to the article. If anyone has recently "randomly come out of the woodwork to screw up" that particular wiki page, I believe it might be this anonymous user who first touched the article a few days ago, and has repeatedly removed statements that mention possible hazards of the herbal ingredients in legal commercialized "relaxation" drinks. In a paragraph about criticism of these products, I think it is entirely appropriate to include sourced statements about the criticisms presented in a TV news story (from the region where abuse of "purple drank" is particularly widespread) in which the products were criticized. The statement does not quote the TV station as an authority on health; it merely states that it aired a story in which this criticism was made. However, as I've pointed out on the article talk page, there are reliable medical sources that express similar concerns about these same herbal substances. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are literally no hazards in consuming that drink by itself, with alcohol, or with any other medications like anti-depressants, benzos, etc. You know that 95% of the time local news is wrong, doesn't have their facts in order, and tries to sensationalize whatever they can. This drink is harmless and you sound like your average run of the mill DARE mom who mouths off about everything without knowing anything about "drugs".. the same kind of person who pulls their "research" from biased websites like NIH, instead of peer-reviewed articles on pub-med. Fool. 72.200.115.120 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your views. I have no personal experience with Drank (soft drink) and similar products (or purple drank, for that matter), so my contributions to articles about these topics are based only on content that has been published in reliable sources. That is, by the way, consistent with Wikipedia policy. If you choose not to consider local TV stations to be reliable as sources of information on local controversies, nor to consider the National Institutes of Health as a reliable source of summary information on health topics, you are free to make your own personal decisions based on the other sources of information that you prefer, but you are unlikely to be able to get Wikipedia to disseminate your personal point of view in place of reliably sourced content. --Orlady (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The only one arguing is you, no one else seems to care or disagree. Find something else to do with your time. 72.200.115.120 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on keeping your cool, ORLady. Impressive. I'd recommend a cup of tea, but given the subject... :-) --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination of History of vice in Texas

I responded to your comments.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You have listed yourself as an admin but you aren't one?

I looked through the list of wiki admins, couldn't find your name anywhere. Did I miss a category? 72.200.115.120 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. See Wikipedia:List of administrators/G-O#O. --Orlady (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Washington International University‎

Hi Orlady, there's a disagreement about an ODA statement from archive.org regarding the Washington International University‎ article. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter, if you have the time. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully, it may at least dull somewhat the over-the-top exaggeration of the responses. TallMagic (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

awful behavior

Your behavior in edit warring, attempting to discard valid disambiguation, and otherwise arguing in edits at Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation) at Talk:Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation), is embarrassing and generally awful behavior.

I know that uninvolved others who review the interactions there are quite likely to judge my comments and interactions there in the same terms. Some could choose to judge me worse, some would judge you worse, others would say we're equally at fault or that they can't be bothered to investigate.

But, what basically happened was that I created a legitimate disambiguation page at the "Old Natchez Trace" name, compliant with all Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and you redirected it and removed all its content, and then you have battled obnoxiously (my view, of course) and continuously for several days now. You misrepresented issues. You recklessly called for reinforcements by posting at WikiProjects Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, suggesting by the fact of your posting and by the content of your edit summaries and Talk that some Great Wrong Against The South was being done. It has needlessly involved numerous good editors in needless contention.

It woulda been fine for you, instead, to have spent some time developing the Natchez Trace article to cover some of the topics, and to discuss mergers and changes to the dab in an orderly way. You know this, and/or you really really oughta know this kind of stuff by now. It does not help matters ever to start by deleting other editors' decent, fully-compliant work.

It is this kind of behavior which repels many from continuing with Wikipedia editing. Yes, you or someone else can say i am at fault too for not backing down and hence for contributing to contention. But the fact is here i was and am building the wikipedia in decent, good ways, and you are causing contention and wasting time, despite, ironically, stating somewhere in this that you are very concerned about waste of volunteer editors time. What an absolute crock! --doncram (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please bug off.

Of the seven people who commented on the matter, six (i.e., everyone but you) agreed that Old Natchez Trace should redirect to Natchez Trace instead of being a disambiguation page, but you are determined to have your way -- apparently because you know in your heart of hearts that you are right and everyone else (i.e., the consensus) is wrong. I know that your intentions are good, but good intentions are no excuse for beating a dead horse.

I haven't pointed out before now that at least two of the other commenters (besides me) are also administrators, but you might want to think about what that indicates. --Orlady (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)