User talk:Orlady/Archive 13

IACBE
Hi Orlady, I noticed you changed the category of IACBE from  to. Why did you do this? As it states in the article, The IACBE is not recognized by U.S. education authorities as a higher education accreditor.

This could change very soon. The CHEA committee on recognition is holding a public meeting in six hours to submit a recommendation to the CHEA board of directors on whether this org. should be recognized (The BOD will decide on whether or not to follow this recommendation on January 22nd). Unless you have a better time machine than me (which I seriously doubt) I don't know how you could know what the committee is going to suggest. I have reverted your change so that all meeting attendees can see the most accurate information. JamaUtil (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing my mistake. I was doing some cleanup of a list-article in the wake of some mass-production edits done by another user, and I misread the IACBE article. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Orlady, I respect your position as a Wikipedia Administrator, however I am surprised that you seem to be going out of your way to surpress and seemingly minimize IACBE's recent CHEA recognition. You seem to be promoting ACBSP and specifically mentioning that IACBE was not recognized by CHEA for many years why the apparent attack? I also noticed that you deleted my reference to AACSB the most respected of business school program accreditation agencies, is their recognition not yet confirmed by a 3rd party? I do apologize for adding my accurate comments (do you think that the IACBE would publish something as significant as this if it was not confirmed at this point?) to your existing citation and honestly hope that my suspicions are unwarranted but your wording in the article doesn't seem objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardo111 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC) (Cardo111 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC))


 * If I have been "going out of my way," my goal was to prevent you from misrepresenting the contents of the sources cited in the IACBE article. I don't doubt that CHEA voted yesterday to recognize IACBE, but that does not justify revising the article to remove the history of what happened before yesterday, nor to claim that since last May IACBE has been on a CHEA list that did not include IACBE either last May or today. Wikipedia is not a publishing outlet for breaking news; we need to wait for some other third party to announce this before it can be reported as verified truth. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, IACBE is now a CHEA recognised organization. See this link - http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp#assembly. Auditguy (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was updating the IACBE article at the same time you were writing that note. Congrats to IACBE. Now I need to get back to updating other articles. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting out the IACBE issue on the European University page. Auditguy (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

John Rice Irwin
You're not giving ANY reason how the John Rice Irwin article is a start class. I did not create the article, I expanded it. Where on Wikipedia does it say I can't asses an article that I expanded. It obviously is higher than start-class. ::::
 * WikiProject Biography:
 * C-class
 * The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material.
 * The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
 * The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class.
 * It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research.


 * Start-class
 * An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
 * The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing.
 * Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability.
 * No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

Opinion doesn't matter on Wikipedia. It obviously is above start-class, if not above c-class. Crowz RSA  02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

 * Welcome to the project and please let me know if you haev any comments, questions or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

William Fones
I started a stub about William Fones. He served on the Tennessee Supreme Court. I came across his name in the deaths for December 2010 section. Otherwise, the redlink would be deleted within a month after his death. Please expand if possible. Thank you-RFD (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You talked me into it. Sigh... --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help. You probably have more access to sources in Tennessee. RFD (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

John Oestreicher
You might be interested in this article John Oestreicher (Wisconsin politician); his obituary appeared today and he served in the Wisconsin State Assembly. Again, my thanks for helping out with the Fones article. RFD (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for L&N Station (Knoxville)
Thanks for the wiki-article Victuallers (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Speedy
Categories for discussion/Speedy

I agree with you that the short forms are as you write. Unfortunately they cannot be used as category names since they are ambiguous - several provinces are named after towns, or the names are found in other countries. The full proper names include the word "provincia" in Spanish. Full names in Spanish are thus "Provincia de Las Palmas", "Provincia de Lleida".

The Wikipedia naming convention for Spanish language province categories is to use the long form with "Province" appended: Category:Provinces of Argentina, Category:Provinces of Bolivia, Category:Provinces of Chile, Category:Provinces of Colombia, Category:Provinces of Gran Colombia, Category:Provinces of Costa Rica, Category:Provinces of Cuba, Category:Provinces of the Dominican Republic, Category:Provinces of Ecuador, Category:Provinces of Equatorial Guinea, Category:Provinces of Panama, (no categories within Category:Provinces of Peru, Category:Provinces of the Spanish Empire), Category:Provinces of Venezuela.

The same Wikipedia naming convention for linguistically and/or geographically related Portuguese language items apply to Category:Provinces of Portugal, Category:Provinces of Angola, Category:Provinces of Mozambique. The only ones that inconsistently use lower case "province" are the ones from Spain listed here. C2C. Could you have a second look? TopoChecker (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replied at WP:CFD. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Basil edit
it is only fair that we refer to Basil Marceaux as BasilMarceaux.com, he claimed in the video that it was his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a joke at his expense. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

admin tool use
I notice your deletion of a disambiguation page that i had created, in (Deletion log); 15:20. . Orlady (talk | contribs) deleted "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)" (G6: Deleted to make way for move) this deletion log edit. Your assertion in edit summary that it met G6 criteria for a noncontroversial deletion is invalid. Obviously from discussion at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), there is going to be disagreement. So, your use of administrative tools to do that seems like a minor abuse. Please don't do that again.

I'll grant that i could have opened a Requested Move request myself, rather than making the move and creating the dab page that you have reversed. But i thot you wanted disambiguation and guessed wrong.

About remedying this case, would you please restore the disambiguation page or provide a copy to me, and i will start a multiple requested move process eventually. I don't have access to the deleted page. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your evisceration of the article Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) and creation of a disambiguation page in its place was totally out of line. That's why I reverted it. Disambiguation pages exist to help users navigate when names are ambiguous, not to document that there are three NRHP listings at that site in Franklin that is known as "Old Town." --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for alerting me to the need to restore the page history. I've done that. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do follow through. If u did provide a copy to some subpage of mine, i have to be told where, it can't be on my watchlist. --Doncram (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored the page history before I posted above to say that I had done so. All of your edits are there. --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the deleted talk page, I've restored it and moved it -- it is now at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)/disambiguation, where it should no longer be in danger of getting deleted by an overly efficient administrator. I saved it in the first place because I was aware that you would want to preserve the history. I expect that you will want to add comments at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) and Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)/disambiguation to document the entire history of who did what, when they did it, and possibly which of my numerous personality defects all this relates to. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see now that you somehow inserted a copy of the dab page into the "history" of the page that is now at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee). It is not how it ever was; the dab page was a separate page and i did not ever eliminate the substance of the article about the mounds and village and archeological site, though anyone reviewing it might now think so.  I had created a separate dab page, and there was a Talk page associated with it, which you moved elsewhere, to "Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) (disambiguation)", i believe along with moving the disambiguation page to "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee (disambiguation)", before you deleted it.  Now another administrator has just seen fit to speedily delete that as a Talk page for a deleted page.  Is that what you intended or expected would happen?  What actually happened and what was discussed between you and me is now garbled and/or unavailable, and this undermines understanding for a requested move that would set things right. --Doncram (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't "insert a copy of the disambiguation page" -- because that content was created at that page title, it is part of the page history for the page. I simply restored the edits that got deleted during the page move process. Other pages that have been repeatedly moved and unmoved have similar oddities in their page histories. I never moved the disambiguation page to a different title.
 * (ec) The disambiguation page was never in the edit history of the page that was at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) then was moved away (with its Talk page), then was moved back (with its Talk page). Not until u inserted the dab page into that page's edit history.  I gather u deleted the disambiguation page first before the move back.  Then it seems odd to have moved the Talk page to where u did.  But okay, thanks for restoring the talk page and its edit history.  About the rest, i'll try to get right on it! :) --Doncram (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, nice to know that I don't have to follow the WP:RM process for Doncram's benefit anymore. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well i'll use RM and i hope everyone else will. I think Orlady coulda disagreed with my boldish move, and moved the dab page to a name with "(disambiguation)" appended (that she obviously considered because she did that for the Talk), and left it for me to open a Requested Move.  Or if she could not have done that because of prior moves, then i should have been chastised for not using RM to start.  But what this little thread was about was use of admin tools in a way that happened to be to one's advantage in a disagreement. --Doncram (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Willis - Charles Churchill
Just a note to say that I have resolved the Willis Churchill (Hamden)/Charles Churchill (UK manufacturer, Churchill Machine Tool Company) father-son relationship without having to break WP:SYN. I'm very grateful for your help with this. I think that I may yet create an article for Willis, even though it may never advance much further than a stub. Certainly, I think that he deserves a mention on the Hamden page, and possibly Charles also as a "significant son" of the place. So significant that none of its inhabitants have probably heard of him!  Sitush (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the comments and for the corrections to my appalling knowledge of US naming customs! I should know better, having studied US history at Cambridge University with some rather good, if slightly doped-up, West Coast professors etc. As long as we agree to differ on the colour/color/recognise/recognize type of spelling and the "write John"/"write to John", I'm pleased to have you on board :) Sitush (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Warnborough College
User:Dougweller has asked a couple of the former regulars at the Warnborough article to comment on this most recent request.Talk:Warnborough_College. Don't know if that's something you'd care to weigh in on or not. Fladrif (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William Fones
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As always thank you again-RFD (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK Churchill Machine Tool Co ... and help!
Hi, thanks very much for the DYK nomination for Churchill Machine Tool Company. I've been reading around the entire process and am, frankly, amazed. Some people are putting a lot of work into that.

Now for the comeback! I think that I have a bit of a problem with my citations. Actually, there are several but the one that is bugging me is that I have been referring to a particular source umpteen times in the article and the reflist is expanding rapidly because of this. Someone did fix another instance of this sort of thing for me but I can't seem to get to grips with it at all. The citation is for David Jeremy, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, "(John) Beresford Stuart Gabriel." Is there any way I can reduce the length of the list output of reflist by combining these references, which all point to the same article and are for all intents and purposes pointing to the same page of it (it is multipage, but barely so and only if you use large fonts!) ?

I don't want to impose but would be really grateful if you do have a solution to this and can point me to the right place. Sitush (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for fixing and the explanation on my talk page. I think that I understand now. As for DYK, well, I'm astonished - it went through without a discussion, let alone an argument :) Sitush (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The DYK went through so smoothly because your article is impressive -- and because the hook that I wrote was one that I knew would be pretty easy to verify. The DYK should give the article a bit of well-deserved attention. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Messick High School
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Atlantic Boulevard (Jacksonville)
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Churchill Machine Tool Company
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rewording
FWIW, I actually thought that your previous wording] was actually both more accurate and more appropriate. But no big deal. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Balsam
Thanks for the restoration; I thought I'd been careful not to remove any improvements, but apparently not. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you for removing the unsourced stuff -- you clearly were more familiar with the article history that I am. I had been looking unsuccessfully for a source for the MBA. I did find some ghits that mentioned the MBA in the search-result description, but either I couldn't see the full article or the full article didn't contain the info. --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'd never before seen it; I was simply going through the hooks in that queue and looking at the sources for their hooks, and to my surprise, the information in the hook wasn't in the article at all.  It was such an egregious omission that I assumed that it had been removed, so I began diving into the history.  Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook suggestion at Edward Proger
Hello! Your submission of an alternative hook to Edward Proger at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath the nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brookside Mills
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Churchill - request for help with source
Hi, I'm close to the limit of what I can do with the Churchill Machine Tool Company entry but there is something that is tantalising me on Google Books & which I can't see in full because I'm not in the US. If you can see [] then would you have time to summarise the relevant bits for me please? In particular, there seems to be a reference to the size of the factory building & number of employees. Or do the copyright issues mean that even you cannot see it in the US? Sitush (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see it, but I don't have time to extract the info right now. I did see that page 235 states that the factory employed "less than 100 men" as of the August 12th previous to the writing. I will send you more details later. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, there's really no rush about this at all. I don't think WP is going to disappear real soon now. I'm just grateful if the info can be gathered in due course ... and mystified as to why a US govt publication that is not classified in the US is nonetheless restricted outside it. The very fact that you can do what I queried shows the futility of a regional restriction. Bureaucratic decisions are v. weird sometimes :) Sitush (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Distance Learning
I'm curious to hear your explaination as to why the "promotional" retoric for PA Cyber is allowed, and my addition, while similar in nature, was removed? Also, blogs and wikis were removed as technologies? Are you familiar with Web 2.0 tools that are in integral parts of distance education?D.moorex47 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC) As for the repeated addition (by you and several other new or unregistered users -- are you working together?) of "wikis" to the list, it is not at all obvious that these are methods of education delivery in current use, you have not cited a source (please see WP:Verifiability regarding the need for references to verify content), and it is not obvious that these are inherently different from the examples already given in the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Distance education is a mess. That does not obligate Wikipedia to tolerate new additions that make the bad situation worse.
 * I've given the article a good going-over during yet another period of being unable to sleep. It is virtually unrecognisable from its prior state and, hopefully, is at least a little more deserving of its place in an encyclopedia.It probably needs expanding now - controversy about testing methods etc - but I'm not really qualified to do this. Sitush (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

St. Peter Danbury
Hi: I was the person who initially put up the little St Peter Danbury page which has created such a stir around here. I noticed that you removed a reference that I made to a post card with a picture of the church.

I have been to Danbury with the sole purpose of researching the local Catholic Churches there. I saw St. Peter Church while I was there. The church is identical to the one in the post card that you removed.

And the Arcadia Publishing book with a reference to 1925 associated with St. Peter Church --- the picture in the book was taken in 1925. The church dates from 1870-76 and not 1925.Lukascb (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense. I interpreted the caption as indicating the date of the church, not the date of the photo. Since the only reference cited in the article that identified the 1870 building as the "present" church building was published in 1896, I made an incorrect conclusion. I fixed the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) for deletion
Thank you for your useful contributions to this discussion, and to particular articles, too. Please join me in mentioning WP:Civility during this discussion. I am doubtful about the mass deletion process, but I seek calm deliberation. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy Land USA
Hi Orlady, thanks for relocking the page... but why only give him 24 hours? I mean, it's not like he didn't threaten to keep it up after his last block []... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Orlady, as you can see your IP blocks are useless in silencing me. Listen, consensus agreed to keep the information yes, but the later added material was cited, and shouldn't have been viewed as disruptive. I was just exercising my right to contribute under the guidelines of sourced material. Apparently this change in demeanor angered both you and the above wikipedian... and so my valid contributions were reverted, and I was blocked. I am sorry you suffer from chronic hypocrite syndrome, but please, let's try and be civil. Now, I recommend a truce. I believe the information added was valid and should be allowed. One user argued it was too much information... yet if you look up John Lennon's murder, or JFK's murder, it goes into grave detail of how the murders occur. I ask why not allow it in this innocent girl's case? I recommend a consensus in regards to the added material. Best 69.177.22.57 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Orlady, you need to stop these useless IP blocks, they aren't working out for you. Why can't we all just edit in peace? I have offered up a concensus, what's the problem here? 149.152.191.2 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're going against wp:consensus. She's been nice and only blocking you for a day at a time. Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My concensus is new Markvs88, this isn't in regards to the original concensus. I would also like to remind Orlady that since this IP is actually a seperate location, my input is valid. This location was never blocked.


 * Hi Orlady, at this point... why not just lock the talk page as well? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not worth it for the petty nature of the recent activity. Sooner or later, boredom will set in and end this. --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right, but as he appears to be a college student, boredom might take years to achieve. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

IACBE
Thank you for the note. I haven't heard anything, but I am inclined to believe IACBE's statement that they did. Maybe the user could include that source. JamaUtil (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) - One list needed
Please note my request, Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) and comment or volunteer to make a list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Our Lady of Victory (disambiguation)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Our Lady of Victory (disambiguation), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.ourladyofvictory.org.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The bot is clearly confused. The disambiguation page is not copied from another source. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson article
Hey, thanks for your quick actions regarding User:Markglad and the Thomas Jefferson article recently. I wanted to let you know that I added a new problem on the post on the noticeboard hoping you would see it. Thanks! nonsense! this WikiManOne speaking. drivel! 18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Saints Kiril & Metodij Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese Cathedral at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RolandR (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Generation of Youth for Christ
Would you consider taking a look there and seeing if you think semi-protection might be appropriate. I began engaging in an edit war there but I'm done, there are two accounts making edits both of which seem unconstructive. WikiManOne 01:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have posted on the article's talk page seeking consensus to revert it to the previous version written, based on coverage in two secondary sources, if you see fit please participate. WikiManOne 23:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Disregard the previous message, an admin has already made those actions. WikiManOne 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky me
Thanks for the heads-up about my DYK nomination. However, distrustful rascal that I am, I had that one saved off-line, so when their computer ate the edit, mine regurgitated it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good deal! Glad to know that you still had a copy. --Orlady (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Distance education
Hi, do you have any idea what the two recent bot edits at distance education are trying to do? I reverted the first one but a second has now performed exactly the same edit & I note from its talk page that a few people have been highlighting problems caused by it.Sitush (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

double redirects fixed by bot, and new AFD
FYI, after you moved St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) article yesterday, the double-redirect-fixing-bot fixed a double redirect that had been created, 10 hours or so later. It is basically pretty prompt. And, that article is the one i chose to reopen as a new single-article AFD, having been discussed in the multiple article AFD, having parish rather than church name, having been prodded previously, and having not been improved. -- do ncr  am  13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ten hours is far too long to wait for a bot to show up when the redirect has incoming links from other articles -- or when (as in this case) the administrator who closed a multi-article AfD hadn't yet gotten around to removing the AfD template and adding the "old afd" template to the Talk page. I am happy to wait to let the bot take care of changing redirects that aren't in active use, but that's not a good idea when the redirects are in use. --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Salegi
Hi. I didn't realise you have a set of special tools. Is there any truth in the sockpuppet thing? --Kudpung (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably simply that as a sysop you are more used to looking at these templates than I am. --Kudpung (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Me again, sorry. So are you  saying  that  Salegi  and User:WikiManOne are not  sockpuppets? --Kudpung (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Clinton Engineer Works
Re Clinton Engineer Works, Nichols does use both terms - CEW or Oak Ridge, though sometimes using Oak Ridge for the residential part? Did the AEC have a new name for CEW when they took over in 1947 or just Oak Ridge? Hugo999 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Clinton Engineer Works was one of several names that were essentially code names. Specifically, it was the Army Corps of Engineers name for their entire operation here. Since Clinton was the nearest (small) city to the area, the name "Clinton Engineer Works" was useful in the surrounding region as, for example, the address to which supplies were delivered. I believe that the CEW name stopped being used around the time that the Army Corps of Engineers stopped running the operation, which was roughly when the war ended. The entire area came to be called Oak Ridge (which also started out as a code name). The code names for the production facilities of X-10, Y-12, and K-25 survived for decades as the names of the site areas where those facilities were located; "Y-12" is still in active use as the name of that site, but in the last 20 years (or so) the X-10 and K-25 names have started to fade from regular use. (The S-50 name is largely forgotten -- because that facility very close to the K-25 site and because it was demolished not long after the war, long before there was any public access to the K-25 area, there is little reason for people to associate its name with a location.) All of the Manhattan Project production facilities are "in" Oak Ridge -- and inside the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge. In local usage, the residential and office area was long known as "the townsite" (a name that distinguished it from the production sites). --Orlady (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI - because I'm  still  confused. Kudpung (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

National Baptist Convention
Thanks Orlady. I believe a better disambiguation page for these conventions would be National Baptists and not National Baptist Convention. National Baptist Convention is the historic reference to the oldest and largest Black baptist convention. When someone types in National Baptist Convention, they will generally be looking for the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. because that is the conventions known reference. None of the other conventions use that name only NBCUSA. I was going to create a National Baptists page for the current information that appears on the National Baptist Convention page and redirect that page to the historic convention for which it is universally known. I am the person who has built these pages. I just forgot my password to the other usernames. I'm toneadr and the other unhidden IP address that has been improving these pages for a year now. I've been a national baptists for decades. I know that this is the common usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationalbaptists (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

St. Andrews AfD
Implying that the decisions of other editors is not based on the merits of the article in question just because they do not agree with yours is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. My decision was based SOLELY on the merits of the article. The fact that my interpretation of the standards for inclusion are more stringent than yours is no reason to question my good faith.

I've always remained open to changing my vote, but, as of yet, none of the sources you have added establishes, in my opinion, that the school meets WP's notability guidelines for schools, which I have thoroughly read several times to ensure that my decision was well justified.

Furthermore, I see nothing in Kudpung's vote or response that indicates that he came to his decision based on anything other than the merits of the article. Rather than "personally attacking" Copritch, he offered his assistance in helping him become a better editor.

As for the Blountville school, I agree that it should have been deleted, and would have voted to delete it myself. However, the fact that it was retained is poor justification for retaining this article. Two wrongs do not make a right. Furthermore, this AfD is about St. Andrew's, not any other schools. Any decision should be made solely on the merits of this article.

I have to admit I'm impressed by the amount of time and work you have invested in this article. But that, of course, has had no bearing on my decision, either.

As for Copritch, his actions have had no bearing at all on my decision. Nor do I consider pointing out his unsportsmanlike behavior to have been a "personal attack" or "biting" a newcomer. New editor or not, he behaved very inappropriately, and getting "nabbed" is not the same as getting "bitten".

Now, speaking as a parent and educator, and not as a WP editor, I'm not concerned about his future here on WP. I'm concerned about his future in real life. His behavior and attitude reveal that he has some serious character issues to work on. "Kicking the cat" is NOT a proper way to deal with frustration. I've been deeply troubled by this for the past few days. If you have any influence over him, please advise him to have a serious talk with his parents and pastor. Problems like this are easily dealt with if nipped in the bud. I'd do it myself, but, frankly, I'm afraid I'd be too heavy-handed. I'm not known for being subtle, especially in writing. Thanks, and good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't expect to see a message here from Dominus, but here goes anyway: citing Blountville school is inappropriate - it falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF and is not an AfD argument. Nevertheless, because the WP:WPSCH has been largely inactive for a long time, it is clear that a lot of schools will have slipped through the net. As new janitor for schools, however, probably very little new stuff will escape my evil eye. Even then, what Orlady as an admin might close as keep or delete today, another admin might have do the opposite tomorrow, but the decision must be based on the policies, and principles we practice today and which have been accepted by the community as consensus through precedent. Kudpung (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that Blountville example as a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but rather of WP:OUTCOMES. I was not commenting on the mere existence of another article, but rather on the conclusion of another AfD in which the persuasive "keep" comment that I believe led to the AfD concluding as "keep" was by the administrator who is largely responsible for drafting WP:OUTCOMES, and who said in that AfD that "the multiple non-trivial references clearly meet WP:N." It appears to me that, rather than applying WP:N, there is a new interpretation of WP:OUTCOMES (one not intended by its authors) as indicating that no elementary or middle school can ever be notable, regardless of the existence of independent reliably sourced coverage. --Orlady (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whata good idea! It would save us both a lot of work ;) --Kudpung (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But surely even you will agree that certain elementary schools are notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Mather is blatantly obvious. You clearly missed the humour in my comment. What  makes the difference is that 'even' I am neither a deletionist nor a inclusionist - perhaps the only 'ist to describe  editors like me is the one in insist, where we try  to play by the rules, don't Wikilawyer, and don't look desperately for loopholes. If those rules change tomorrow, I will follow the new ones. I'm old enough to remember a magistrate who once had to put men behind bars for being gay; before he retired he was having to perform their marriage ceremonies at  city hall. Kudpung (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!!!
Orlady, can you please take a look at my new and improved article, User:Pchittg1/George M. Davis Elementary. I hope you like it! Pchittg1 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ed Westcott
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable Alumni for Northcentral University
Orlady, need some advice. I looked up the following information and noticed that academics and scholars are listed as notable. Some of them doing research and work at Ivy League Universities and others are notable for research in the academia. Although the list is biased in favor of information systems graduates, the research into prominent alumni is an ongoing project as the University does not seem to have an alumni organization. Academics Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.123.195 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, anonymous. Being employed in academia does not in itself make a person notable by Wikipedia criteria. To be notable, an academic generally must satisfy at least one of the criteria listed at Notability (academics). --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for kindly letting me know about the DYK article. Much appreciated.--Storye book (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Manhattan Project article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation methods

 * You may of course improve article formatting as you like & in this regard, my comments are gratuitous.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for September 2010 Minnesota-Wisconsin flood
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yosef Ben-Jochannan
Dear Orlady, I have seen smackbot tag unreliable sources in the Yosef Ben-Jochannan article. I have never seen this before from a bot. Please advise me if it would be proper to just take the tags out. --Wlmg (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bolding
Sorry about the bolding, bad habit. Thanks, by the way, for helping make the list so much better than I ever could have done. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I am not sure if Joan Fontaine qualifies for the list of people who adopted matronymic surnames -- her stage name/pseudonym of Fontaine, was her own actress mother's (Lilian Augusta Ruse) stage name. I am not sure if it qualifies. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There so many people who clearly adopted a mother's maiden name that it doesn't seem necessary to think about people who might marginally qualify. For what it's worth, I added Margot Fonteyn to that list, not Joan Fontaine. --Orlady (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. I noticed the Fonteyn addition. Good work. Thanks. My question about Fontaine was hypothetical -- something I was wondering. It's not in the list. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hult address in Cambridge, Ma
Hi there,

I see that you changed the address to Boston. I've changed it back for now, and opened a discussion about the address of the school in Mass. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, regarding your most recent edit - you commented "editing location info per talk page discussion", it is not clear to me that the outcome of the discussion should have led to this edit. Bthor did not seem to side one way or the other, I am in favor of Cambridge, Mass. and you want "Boston area", in the absence of some consensus, I think the only logical approach is to state that the school is located in the city that it is located in. Further, I feel it is a little impolite to change a good faith edit while the discussion is ongoing, from what I've seen of wikipedia, it is the kind of thing that leads to arguments and I have no interest in waring/fighting.

Clearwaterbehind (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tyche (planet)
Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Klaus Maria Brandauer
Hi. I checked out what you wrote in your edit summary. I don't speak or read German but I take your word for however you translated it. I checked out the following and it appears Brandauer's wife's maiden name was Karin Katharina Müller (see, ). Thanks for looking out to make sure everything is as accurate as possible. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubai Gem Private School
Log: 22:21, 4 January 2011 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Dubai Gem Private School" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

It was recreated immediately the next day and on  24 Jan. I  removed a lot of puff. I don't work with school articles or school projects anymore so perhaps you can take a look at it. --Kudpung (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/La Garenne School
FYI - in case it's not on your watchlist. --Kudpung (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on my watchlist, but regardless I really don't care that it was deleted. --Orlady (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

New Hampshire Maine rivalry
Thanks for the DYK nom there, for some reason I didn't think to nominate it myself. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Edgar Gilbert
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Reiche Community School
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Orlady, thanks for the tips. Cheers Brizland (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Americana Album
Thanks for expanding the article! I would have felt forced expanding the article just for the sake of getting a DYK hook on the Main Page, but your contributions were appropriate and helpful. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for New Hampshire–Maine hockey rivalry
Materialscientist (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Estacado, Texas
Orlady (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for recommending this. It got 5,100 hits. Maile66 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robert McConnell (loyalist)
Orlady (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maori
Hm, I got through about a thousand, and when I came back, all the rest were done. However, it looks like they might have simply all be switched to 'Maori people': I have AWB set to pick out  Māori term , and I'm finding a fair number of those. That suggests there are many more that refer to the language but that are not followed by the word 'term'. — kwami (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Orlady! I'm not sending thankspam, and although we've not  always seen eye-to-eye on  some issues, I would like to  personally thank  you for your magnanimous change of vote without which I  would probably  not have succeeded. What I learned on this RfA will also go  towards continuing  to mentor others, and  participating in the campaign to  make RfA a more appealing  prospect for editors who  also  need the tools, but  who  are too  afraid to  come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of George Washington Harris
Hello! Your submission of George Washington Harris at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cinosaur (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for List of people who adopted matronymic surnames
Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:DYK queues
Sorry! I'll try to keep the quirky ones back for the bottom hooks. :) Miyagawa   (talk)  10:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issue
In the DYK page you complained that the beta article was "seriously deficient in the sourcing department". I count 15 paras in the body, and 16 references. All of the links are to serious first-rate sources. What is concerning you? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jean Babilée
Gatoclass (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George Washington Harris
Materialscientist (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Presidio9 identity thief
I was kinda shocked to see my identity my impersonated. I was also troubled by what amounted to a slap on the wrist for Presidio9. Anyone clever enough to falsify a signature doesn't need a lesson on how to sign their own post. My 2¢. --Wlmg (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical Arts Building
I emailed you the nomination form. Bms4880 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company
Hi, I'd just like to repeat my thanks to you from January. You assistance with the Hamden connection for the above article & your encouragement with a DYK nom did spur me on. The article has just attained GA status, with a suggestion from the reviewer that it should go for FAC. It may never have happened without encouragement from people such as yourself. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA question

 * Your RfA question here asks how, the candidate essentially answered why instead. They obviously misinterpreted it, and it's not really clear to me either. Perhaps you could refactor it to clarify its intent? As is, the obvious answer of 'how will you review PRODs?' is 'individually', is it not? Regards,  Swarm   X 04:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Arizona v. New Mexico
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Relisting of RM of Podlachian Voivodeship (1513–1795) to Podlaskie Voivodeship (1513-1795)
Why did this this RM get relisted? We have a 3:1 vote in favor of the RM. The request has been there for over 30 days. It's had about the broadest discussion that it's going to get - we've listed it on WikiProject Poland. The article was originally at Podlaskie Voivodeship (1513-1795) after a 2008 discussion, except about a year ago an Admin decided to move it over to a redirect w/o any discussion at all. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK Mary Hynes
Could you please take another look with ALT1? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Smart_Cover_DYK_removed
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. Mono (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (Using )

DYK for Medical Arts Building (Knoxville, Tennessee)
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Mono (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD of article you worked on
Please see: Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anne W. Armstrong
NW ( Talk ) 00:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Our Molten salt reactor article
When you get the chance, could you take a look at this? It seems pretty one-sided. Furthermore, there have been a wide range of molten salt reactors but this article has been pretty much taken over by advocates of one variant, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). It seems to me we probably need one article for molten salt reactors and another LFTRs. To some extent, some non-engineering enthusiasts seem to be confusing reactor cooling variations (water vs. liquid salt, etc.) vs fuel cycles (thorium vs. uranium).

The LFTR reactor design has been getting a lot of hype in the last 2 weeks; I'm instinctively wary of new (or resurrected) reactor designs that solve all the world's problems without any of the costs or issues associated with today's designs. They bring to mind some comments from Hyman Rickover almost 60 years ago (and still true): I'm not saying these designs aren't promising -- just that it takes a lot of practical engineering work to get a design from the expert pages of Wired magazine to the real world of some commercial reactor site. In any event, we need a neutral article, especially now when the concept is getting a lot of hype after the Fukushima debacle.
 * Hyman G. Rickover

You may be especially interested in the LFTR since the original work on this was done at ORNL. Alvin Weinberg was the father of this design and its leading proponent.

As always, thanks so much for being the "editor's editor" here on Wikipedia. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PS, I've left a similar message for Georgewilliamherbert; I understand he's got some nuclear expertise. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Familar?
Look familiar? Only this time with a nude park proclivity? Wknight94 talk 17:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Triune, Tennessee
Hello! Your submission of Triune, Tennessee at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Old Town map
I've emailed you the Old Town site map. Bms4880 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Triune, Tennessee
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nomination for William Yardley
Hi... Thanks for your response regarding the DYK nom for Yardley. My question is more of an academic one, and not about the article or nom itself. As it happens, I self-nominated in DYK today (only my second time) and my hook (from Spirit Fruit Society) contains the phrase, "...is considered to have... ", and it makes me a little uneasy. I don't know if the 'fact' in my nom is provable or not - just that my referenced author says it. I'm really just wondering if that's an issue for the article or for the DYK hook. Just learning... :) Thanks!   Wikipelli  Talk   16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

South Street (Manhattan)
I understand your rationale in removing the contributions of a block evading user, but the contribution in question seems to improve the article. Would you mind terribly if I reinstated? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is you should use the source to write your own content. Jvolkblum's ban was largely due to misrepresenting sources, copyright violation, and plagiarism.  Use the source, but please don't use the content.  Wknight94 talk 18:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied on ScottyBerg's talk page, with advice very similar to Wknight94's. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't familiar with the history of this guy. Thanks for the advice. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Taconic Mountains
This unexplained deletion of sourced material by user:calamitybrook just materialized at Taconic Mountains: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taconic_Mountains&action=historysubmit&diff=423423220&oldid=423336353 Asking for intervention as it seems destined to spiral without some oversight. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on my watchlist now... --Orlady (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Knoxville Riot of 1919
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hollingworth Magniac DYK submission
Hi, sorry to bother you but how is good old Hollingworth looking now? I see it is still on the DYK talk page and looks like a poor orphan. Is there anything else that needs to be done to the article? Best ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Retiring from Wikipedia
I just wanted to let you know that I am retiring from Wikipedia effective this weekend. This is not related to issues regarding policy, other issues, or Wikipedia. My personal priorities have changed in the sense that I am engaged to be married along with a job-related exam that I will take in October.

I wish to thank you for working with me on various issues within Wikipedia. Chris (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Chris (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Norman D. Stevens page deleted
Hello Orlady, I am writing to inquire about your decision to delete the wikipedia page on Norman D. Stevens, founder of the Molesworth Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molesworth_Institute

Norman has contributed a lifetime of historic academic and creative work to the library profession, and I was extremely surprised when I found that his page had been deleted. I am writing to ask if you could either reinstate the page or if I should create a new one. Thanks. Opal Whiteley (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Norman D. Stevens article was proposed for deletion, and later deleted by me, for failing to meet the Wikipedia general notability guideline. Additionally, it was an unsourced biography of a living person (see WP:BLP). I can email you the article or restore the article to your user space, but it should not be returned to article space until it cites sufficient sources so that it complies with Wikipedia policies on verifiability and the notability guidelines. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Orlady if you could restore the article to my user space that would be best, and I will add the required citations to comply with wikipedia regulations before uploading to the article space. Opal Whiteley (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is now at User:Opal Whiteley/Norman Stevens. --Orlady (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power population
Editor, I appreciate your changes to the headings on the nuclear power plants pages, and the conversion, but you're also removing information about cities surrounding nuclear power plants, saying that the information is not in the source cited. Are you saying that the lists of cities and distances is not in the article cited? Not so. See the bottom of the article's text, where each one is listed. I've restored the city names and distancies to the entries.Extremely hot (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Aha! In the visual clutter on the MSNBC website (which is not one I am familiar with), I did not find the indication that there was additional text not displayed on the first page. I don't much like the way the information is presented (it makes sense in the context of an article about all U.S. commercial reactors, but singling out one or two cities per article is not very encyclopedia-like), but I agree that is supported by the source. --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William F. Yardley
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles W. Cansler
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Austin-East High School
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management
Need help from editor who understands finance or governmental sector. 2 Editors continue to remove the primary governmental references from this article American Academy of Financial Management

Can you help somehow to make sure that the government links and regulatory references and citations remain in the article to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but rather include government links, the top US accreditation agencies, and FINRA and US Government referneces to AAFM. Most of the information that is included in todays article was approved by the two editors last year. Not sure why these editors now think the references and facts should be deleted at this time? Please help get this article right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the current situation on that page. --Orlady (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Conversation started by Orlady on Doncram's talk page and moved here by Doncram: Please refrain from creating stubs with placeholders waiting to be filled in
(copy-paste-moved from User talk:Doncram ) I would have thought that you would be chastened by the block that recently ended, and that you might refrain from the editing behavior that has resulted in so many conflicts with other users. Furthermore, I would have expected that you would have used the forced time off to develop content that would be ready for article space from the get-go. Accordingly, I was seriously dismayed to see that your first new article since the block, Dinnie Apartments, is yet another stub constructed almost entirely from the cryptic details in an NRIS listing, complete with "fill-in-the-blank" style statements:


 * It was built or has other significance in 1903.
 * -- If you don't know what the date signifies, perhaps you are not ready to discuss it in an article. (Also, I* see that the nomination for the historic district says what happened in 1903.)


 * It was designed and/or built by Dinnie Brothers.
 * -- As above, if you don't know, perhaps you are not ready to discuss this in an article. (Also, the nomination for the historic district describes the role of the Dinnie Brothers.)


 * When listed the property included one contributing building and one non-contributing building.
 * --Again, if you don't know anything about these buildings, you're not ready to write an article. Furthermore, the terminology "contributing" is not relevant to a listing for a property; it only applies to historic districts.


 * The listing is for an area of less than 1 acre.
 * --Why is this an encyclopedic detail?


 * And finally, there's this collection of blanks to be filled in: " and Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___ (see photo captions page __ of text document)"
 * --Since that link actually points to a document, it ought to have been possible to include the reference, instead of a set of placeholder blanks.

Additionally, the ID number (32GF634) that you found in NRIS is not encyclopedic information that belongs in article text. At most, it should be limited to the reference citation and possibly also the infobox.

If you wish to avoid future confrontations -- not to mention future blocks, one thing you could do is refrain from creating stubs filled with placeholder language. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Orlady, please back off. I created that article and filled it out already quite a bit more, specifically to this version before you completed your first posting in this little discussion here.  You are off-base in your general views, I believe, and your following me and your making a critical remark like this is not constructive, I believe.  Also, the article you question relates to a specific discussion at wt:NRHP about creation of short articles on NRHP-listed places in Grand Forks County.  You did not comment in that discussion.  But the consensus was that creating articles like that is fine and good.


 * Pretty sure you just made up that consensus.. the consensus was that the articles should not be left in the sad state that Dinnie Apartments is in but rather brought up to at least a few paragraphs before being moved into mainspace. I appreciate the fact that you at least took the time to include 3-4 non-bot sentences in the article, but I personally don't see that as "pretty good status." I mean, dude, at least learn to write a complete paragraph. This skipping a line between each sentence and having a bunch of random facts thrown on the page is extremely annoying. I know you're frustrated, Doncram, but you're going to continue to be frustrated/condemned/blocked until you get with the program. No one in the project wants this crap; please listen to what these people are saying, or you could find yourself blocked for longer than a week next time.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was SarekOfVulcan who added some of that non-bot content. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I think you're just being petty. SarekOfVulcan added one sentence and revised/improved one other, in these 2 edits.  I am glad SarekOfVulcan visited and contributed a bit.   But I did more than that in my edits preceding those; your statement here seems like posturing to mislead others who will read this.  What is this, a trial, anyhow?  Further, it is misleading that you struck off just one item in your list of original complaints above, when in fact the first item and perhaps more had already been addressed by me BEFORE you even posted your list of complaints! -- do  ncr  am  12:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not being petty. Yes, he only added a few words, but SarekOfVulcan added a large fraction of the article's substantive information about the building's history. To your credit, you also added a little bit of substance. --Orlady (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to have many disagreements with me. The right forum I believe is dispute resolution.  I request that you participate in a mediated discussion.  I think that is best because you and I could probably speak relatively frankly, and it would not require excessive diffs and exhaustive study of all past interactions between us.  Would you agree to mediation to discuss your/our differences, please? -- do  ncr  am  20:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(end of copy-paste-moved) Hi Orlady, I'd really rather not have a lot of negative stuff piled up at my Talk page, am moving this here. On a previous occasion when I deleted your negative-seeming note on my Talk page, you copy-pasted it elsewhere. I am willing to discuss whatever you want, if you will please be courteous. I suggest mediation as the best forum, or other form of dispute resolution. -- do ncr  am  22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article Dinnie Apartments still has most of the issues that I identified in the comments I posted on your talk page, Doncram. And contrary to your perception that I have a personal dispute with you, the problem I have is with your attitude that numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't apply to you. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree. Actually I think you have an attitude and your editing is sometimes/often contrary to some Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  We will have to agree to disagree, okay?


 * I notice you've now followed my edits to several articles I recently created. I object to this edit by you in whose edit summary you assert that property size and presence of contributing and noncontributing buildings on the property are not relevant.  I think those facts are very relevant in articles about NRHP-listed places;  they are commonly included in such articles.  If you seriously wish to change general practice in historic site article writing, I suggest your opening an objective discussion, say a neutrally worded RFC, at some suitable central place.


 * In fact I will support you if you take steps towards revising the NRHP infobox to include a field to hold other identifiers. However I object to your simply removing other identifier type of information selectively from articles that I happen to touch.  There are many hundreds of articles I am sure that have archeological site numbers or state historic site number or other numbers in their text.  I would support some revision of general treatment, but I object to your following me and your finding fault selectively with me, where i am following usual practice. -- do  ncr  am  00:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am profoundly uninterested in the NRHP infobox. The fact that it is important to you will not cause me to devote energy to revising it. As for the items I removed from Dinnie Apartments and other articles, I explained my logic at Talk:Dinnie Apartments, as follows:
 * The items I removed are all administrative details that likely are important to zoning authorities, the local property tax assessor, etc., but lack encyclopedic significance. The numerical code/identifier for the property is included in a reference citation, so it should not need to be recorded elsewhere in the article (similarly, the ISBN number of a book is not normally a subject for text discussion in an article). The business about the size of the lot being less than one acre is presumably related to the legal description of the property (of interest to tax assessor and zoning authority), but it's not awfully informative (we can't tell if it's 0.1 acre or 0.5 acre or 0.95 acre, and in any event it doesn't say anything about the historic building). The information on the nom form about the contributing building and the noncontributing building seems to have to do with the fact that there's a small storage building out back that isn't historic; that's possibly important information for the local historic zoning officer and the tax assessor to have in their records, but it's not of particular interest for an encyclopedia. Not everything that's documented by a reliable source belongs in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly: you are "profoundly uninterested" in these type of articles and issues.  In previous periods of your following me and disputing, you have scoffed at coverage of architectural details, where a place is NRHP-listed for its architecture.  I don't want to argue the details with you about whether a given article about a NRHP listed place can mention the area of the property, if you are not interested in the details at a given article.  You are also not interested enough to raise general questions about issues that go across articles.  So, please don't follow me to such articles and raise dispute about small details. -- do  ncr  am  11:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern is about a veteran editor's persistence in creating article-space content that is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You have claimed in the past that you create these stubs so that newbie editors can improve the articles, but it looks to me like a newbie interested in the the topics would be more likely to be intimidated by them. When confronted by a stub full of junk information (like a serial number that somebody once assigned to a building) and an infobox (whose formatting is not easy for newbies to understand), I have a hunch that a prospective contributor would most likely say "I'd better not touch that because I don't understand it." --Orlady (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You have made more derogatory statements about me before, but those are fighting-type words and constitute, or verge on, violation of wp:NPA. wp:NPA states: "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."  I object to the tone and your intent, which seems to be to inhibit me from editing in Wikipedia.  Would you clarify about that:  is that your objective? -- do  ncr  am  14:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Adventist articles
I've been going around editing a lot of Adventist articles recently. I noticed that there was a vandal on the Highland View Academy page, User:Renees kids which readded information from the IP. I don't know if you noticed that the IP was from Hagerstown, the town HVA is located in, and I think the user name, Renees kids has something to do with Renee Williams, the Director of Recruitment and the person running this twitter account. Doesn't that create a suspicion of a conflict of interest? BelloWello (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It did appear likely that the user was affiliated. However, the user name does not violate policy -- and, frankly, I'm more concerned with maintaining article quality than with prosecuting people for COI. The edits have been reverted and the user was warned. I see no need for additional action at this time. --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Originally on User talk:Doncram and moved here by Doncram: "Your edits to my talk page"
I guess I need to accept the fact that you refuse to allow me to communicate with you on this talk page. It's your page and you make the rules for it. I don't particularly like the fact that you insist on moving discussions to my user talk page, but since that's apparently a place where you will reply to me, I guess I can live with it. However, I draw the line at your insistence on taking control of the organization of my talk page, as you did in this edit. For someone who is so touchy about what other people say on his talk page, you are awfully free with yourself on my page. I hope that you know better than to repeat that kind of action. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Orlady, I moved the title you had created to a lower level, as it is impractical to have edit summaries that long. -- do  ncr  am  11:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * True enough. However, the fundamental problem is that it is impractical to communicate with a user who insists on moving my messages from his talk page to mine. Once again, I've edited the heading of a section (this one) to clarify what it is and where it came from. --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your acknowledgement of my preference that way, in your posting this to my Talk page, was ironic. To be clear, I do object to your commenting at my Talk page.  Please don't.  In the past you and have occasionally cooperated, but your focus upon me and your comments at my Talk page have seemed all negative for a while now.  Please desist, or take it to appropriate dispute resolution.


 * I will respond to your accusations here, however, as you seem to want to have discussion here, and as in the past when I have removed your comments that I deemed rude from my Talk page, you have plastered copies of them into Talk pages of mainspace articles, which seems worse for Wikipedia. -- do ncr  am  14:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * User talk pages are an appropriate place for commenting on a user's behavior. Various message boards also are appropriate for that purpose. I agree with you that article talk pages, wikiProject talk pages, etc., are not appropriate places for discussing other users. I hope that your comment means that you will no longer be making personal accusations (against me, Polaron, Blueboar, Dudemanfellabra, etc.) on content-specific talk pages. I've searched through your user talk page to find situations where you removed a comment of mine and I "plastered copies" into Talk pages of mainspace articles. I found exactly one instance where I copied a general comment about your behavior onto an article talk page:
 * 19 July 2009 - I had posted a concern on your talk page about a pattern of behavior, with reference to a specific example. You removed it from your talk page with the note "i just don't feel like having this discussion at my talk page..." and you replied on my talk page. Since your reply was focused on the particulars of your edit to the specific article, you made it into a content discussion and I moved it to the relevant article talk page (it's now at Talk:Norris, Tennessee), where the discussion grew to great length. It appears to me that you chose to convert that criticism of a behavior pattern into a content discussion.
 * I don't particularly want to discuss your behavior on my user talk page. In fact, I wish I didn't see a need to discuss your behavior anywhere, because I would greatly prefer for you to stop behaving like an [expletive deleted]. I hope that your recent one-week block would help you to realize that your continuing conflicts with other users have more to do with you than with the other users. (Re-read WP:NOTTHEM.) If continuing discussion of your behavior is needed, I think a general Wikipedia noticeboard would be the appropriate venue for such a discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You sound pretty insulting to me. If you don't want to discuss me, then please stop.


 * I am not completely sure what is acceptable for you to say at Talk pages of Userspace vs. Talk pages of Mainspace. this was a salvo of yours at the Old Town Franklin Tennessee article, which included diffs of your comments that I had felt were rude and chose to delete.  Right, you did not copy-paste exactly what i deleted, you included it into mainspace Talk in the form of a diff.  I am not immediately finding diff of your copy-pasting in some other circumstance relatively recently.  I'll post it here if/when I find it. -- do  ncr  am  21:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so you have two examples -- although that is not a case where I moved content from your user talk page to an article talk page. Rather, I believe your gripe is with the edit summary on this diff, which referred to this diff from your talk page. I was convinced due to the timing of your actions -- and I still believe (supported by your comment that "something" reminded you of that page) -- that your recent revert activity at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), after weeks in which you had paid zero attention to that page, were motivated by your desire to get back at me for my edits in relation to The Dilemma (film) (where I think you were making a fool of yourself by insisting that a current movie could not be the primary topic due to the existence of a little-known silent film that didn't even have a Wikipedia article). May I remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground -- nor a place for schoolyard squabbling? --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, please stop making Wikipedia into a battleground, by following me to every article and finding fault. I happen to disagree with your fault-finding most of the time.  Sometimes you make an improvement, i agree.  Sometimes you are absolutely wrong by policy, practice, rational thinking, good writing, etc., IMO.  Other times you just have a subjectively different opinion, not better not necessarily worse.  But, given the longrunning dispute, it is better for you to hold back, not to follow, not to battle.  I am not making Wikipedia into a battleground by following you.  You have made it into a battleground by following me everywhere.  Please do stop the squabbling.  Stop! -- do  ncr  am  23:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

stop and discuss
I notice from this edit with edit summary about trimming extra verbiage, that you are possibly searching on text strings to find articles to revise in a certain way. Or you are going into past articles that i created. However you are searching, you are finding multiple articles that I started or developed; your edits are popping up on my watchlist. Could you please stop on that campaign, if it is one, and discuss at some central forum? I don't agree with your removal of information that I think is relevant in that edit. There could well be some improvements to be made systematically, but I ask that you pose those in a discussion and pause with those now.

In this diff you make some improvement but you also delete some crucial information.
 * Specifically, you remove info indicating that the Monroe Elementary School (Davenport, Iowa) was nominated for NRHP listing and that there is a certain code indicating its DR listing status (so in fact NRIS does not show it being NRHP-listed, and it's not clear whether it was eventually listed or not). It was/is mentioned in the article that it was "noted" on the NRHP;  but you removed clarifying information. -- do  ncr  am  01:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In various edits you are removing identifiers which might better be retained or shifted into an infobox. In various edits you are removing clarifiers about buildings and structures or absence thereof, which are part of basic description of NRHP listings. I appreciate some but not all components of your edits. What do you want me to do? -- do ncr  am  00:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied after reading this edit but not this one:
 * I didn't know that I needed your permission to edit stubs that you created robotically a couple of months ago. I didn't know you would claim ownership. Indeed, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia now allowed people to own articles. When did the policy change? --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the issue is more like wp:battleground, mixed with some legitimate content issues. If I follow your edits now to revert them, I assume you would seek to have me blocked or otherwise continue to try to get me into trouble.  I do really and truly disagree legitimately with a good part of what you are doing.  I have raised those issues in a couple article Talk pages, and suggested you raise some of them centrally.  You have declined and you have also indicated you don't care one whit about various things.  Crucially, it is you following me.  So, maybe you do now care about some matters.  Well, I ask you now to pause and discuss in some decent forum, rather than running with the types of changes that I specifically disagree with, and I expect others will disagree with too. -- do  ncr  am  01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally agree fully with this edit. It makes the article flow much better and removes much of the choppy/vague language that I always criticize. The only thing I see that could be a little controversial is that Orlady removed the fact that the NRHP listing has "one contributing site and no buildings." That's kind of a no-brainer.. it's a cemetery; the cemetery is the contributing site. Saying we should keep that sentence in is like saying we should include "The listing includes one contributing building, no sites, and no structures" on every single NRHP article.
 * As far as this edit goes, I tend to agree with Doncram that the fact that it isn't listed (yet?) should be mentioned in the article, but as I have said before on numerous occasions, the way Doncram writes it is extremely choppy and robotic. Something a la "Though it was nominated for listing on the National Register in blah, it is listed as of 2010 (2009?) as 'DR' in the National Register Information System (NRIS) database, which means blah. If it is eventually listed, it would have reference number blah," (which would be the longest complete thought in the article at present, frankly). Actually, the entire article could be reduced to a single flowing paragraph, and that paragraph may actually be longer than the current choppy mess that's in there now. I would be editing the article right now to fix it instead of just talking about it, but I can't open the nomination document because Preview says it's in a form that isn't recognized.. not sure what's up with that.
 * I repeat the same sentiment as before about the "contributing building" sentence; it isn't necessary. Also, "The listing is described in its NRHP nomination document," is a rubbish sentence. Every NRHP listing is described in its nomination document; why does this one deserve extra mention? Not to mention the fact that the random acronym (to non-project members) "NRHP" is thrown in without explanation. Overall I agree with most of Orlady's edit–and really don't think it goes far enough–but Doncram does have a point about the "DR" listing.
 * If you, Doncram, would even glance at these articles before copying them to mainspace, you wouldn't run into these problems. Sure, it's nice to have bluelinks everywhere, but sometimes these formatted-like-crap monstrosities may actually deter novice editors from writing about the topic because they aren't sure how to mop up your mess. All these semi-bot-stubs could use a good clean up like Orlady is (apparently) doing, and that is precisely the reason why everyone and their mother is against the creation of these things. The claimed "consensus" on which you lean at WT:NRHP clearly expressed the view that these articles should not just be printouts of the NRIS database. Please stop doing this.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this fracas for a few days, and have looked back through what is clearly quite a saga. Frankly, it is a mess and I'm generally in agreement with Orlady. I write this as someone who has no connections with the US. On the same cemetery article referred to by Dudemanfellabra, what does "It was founded or has other significance in 1693" mean? It certainly isn't encyclopedic - talk about needing a tag ... If who ever wrote it does not know the significance then leave it out; if the person does know then say it; if a bot wrote it then the bot needs fixing. I hope that  this isn't the same for all of these articles. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * [EC - Doncram posted below before I added this comment] Clarification: Doncram extensively altered his above comment after the initial version that I responded to -- and he added to it after I had responded. The comment that I responded to earlier was specifically about my edits to Mansfield Center Cemetery. It did not mention the edits to Monroe Elementary School (Davenport, Iowa), nor much of the rest of the content that is now part of his comment. In case other users are unaware that this behavior can be a form of disruption, I suggest that you look at Talk page guidelines, especially WP:TALKNO and WP:REDACTED.


 * Okay, I object to the negative aspects of those accusations. FOLLOWING ORLADY'S OWN PRACTICES, which I have observed many times in many forums, I have edited my own comments promptly on occasion on this Talk page.  To fix URLs, to fix typos, to complete out an incomplete thought, to clarify.  Never to achieve any unfair edge, never to confound or to negate or to confuse other comments.  Orlady, if this is the level at which we are discussing, i.e. if there is not basic trust in how to have a conversation, if there are rampant accusations of evil-doing in how statements are made, then that is an indicator we cannot have a discussion.


 * Do you want to have a real discussion, or not? If you do want to have a real discussion, I suggest you drop the accusations of bad faith in how I am actually attempting to engage in discussion with you, on your talk page.  Be civil, please. -- do  ncr  am  16:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the specifics of the comments that I did not respond to earlier:
 * Yes, I did find those pages by searching Wikipedia for some particular text strings that I had found in a few of Doncram's bot-created NRHP stubs and that I deemed to be inappropriate language for an encyclopedia article. It is not important to document what strings I searched on because those pages include multiple examples of inappropriate language. Suffice it to say that I did not (yet) edit most of the instances that I found.
 * I agree that Monroe Elementary School (Davenport, Iowa) is not satisfactory in the form in which I left it. However, I think the best solution is to remove that page from article space. Although it appears to cite three sources, two of those sources are actually nonworking web links to documents that I believe none of us have actually seen. The text on that page is in fact an elaborated description of the cryptic information available from an NRIS database entry. Statements like "It was built or has other significance in 1940" would be more accurately restated as "The NRIS database lists a date of 1940 but doesn't say what it refers to in reference to this building." The sentence I deleted that said "Its listing status is DR, which means DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION" particularly offended me because it is in ALL CAPS. I suppose it should be credited for being honest about the fact that it is merely a description of a database entry, but I don't believe that whole articles should be written about individual NRIS database entries. A particularly serious problem with that particular article is that none of us knows why this building was "noted" in the NRIS database with that "DR" listing status. I think it is very possible that the school was demolished, meaning that the present-tense verb in the lead sentence is wrong.
 * I have deleted several statements about "one contributing building" or "no contributing buildings" for the kinds of reasons that Dudemanfellabra states.
 * Those statements of the form "The listing is described in its NRHP nomination document" absolutely do not belong in an encyclopedia article. The NRHP nomination document should be cited as a reference, and it should be assumed that the reader can figure out what that means. More than a few newbies do create articles in the general style of "This is my article; for more information about my topic see the reference list," but that does not make this an appropriate writing style.
 * As for what I want Doncram to do, the answer is that (1) he should move pages like Monroe Elementary School (Davenport, Iowa) to his user space until he has some solid information to convey in the article and (2) he should trim his other bot-style stubs back so that they only include whatever solid information is available. I have trimmed Argyle Flats to show what I mean. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you Orlady for pausing, which I perceive you have done. Then, it should be possible to have a decent discussion that is productive and does not include insults, generally derogatory and angry tone, and instead include civil, respectful discussion, assuming good faith of me and of others. I am not sure if that is possible here, but I am willing to try here if others will also.

Thank you Dudemanfellabra for acknowledging concern about the DR item.

No thank you Dudemanfellabra for what I perceive to be insulting tone in "If you, Doncram, would even glance at these articles before..." I consider that to be derogatory, at least partly qualifying the statement to be a personal attack. Please assume good faith and please do not engage in personal attacks.

No thank you Orlady for what I perceive to be insulting tone in "I didn't know that I needed your permission to edit stubs that you created robotically a couple of months ago. I didn't know you would claim ownership. Indeed, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia now allowed people to own articles. When did the policy change?" I perceive that to be sarcastic and deliberately insulting. Am I wrong? Orlady, please try not to be derogatory and sarcastic. I believe your statements at least partly qualify as a personal attack. Please assume good faith and please do not engage in personal attacks. Please don't promote a negative, attacking-type environment.

Thank you Sitush for your comment. I appreciate your opinion. For your information, a statement like "It was built or has other significance in 1913 and 1914.[1]" can be an accurate, valid statement to have in a new article about an NRHP-listed historic place, based upon the National Register's NRIS database as a source. Agreed that the statement is vague. Ideally the should be replaced, sooner or later, by a more precise, more informed statement, based upon the complete NRHP application document, which I am usually including into these articles. Such a statement however, is accurate in its deliberate vagueness. It is strongly preferred by me to a possibly false, unsupported statement, which previous other editors have often made using the same source but interpreting it, unjustifiably IMO, as meaning "It was built in 1913". (Note, for a case like that it is often a good guess that what is meant is "The building was built during 1913-1914." However, it could be, instead, that a significant series of other events happened during that time, e.g. that an important person resided in the home or performed some important research during that period, or there was some other significance to those dates.  Note, the previous main provider of NRIS data informing Wikipedia editors in article writing would not have shared the fact that NRIS identifies the 2nd date as significant.)

So, about that point, I know from a reliable source that the stated dates have significance for the given historic site, and I believe that it is acceptable and good to state that. It is wrong IMO to rewrite it to state something seeming more precise, but possibly false. It is indeed helpful if I or another editor replace the statement by a precise characterization of the meaning of the given date(s) based upon the full NRHP nomination document as a source.

However, it is tearing down and unhelpful, IMO, for an editor to systematically merely delete such accurate, sourced, properly vague statements from historic sites articles, given that other interested, informed editors are working to develop these articles. The statements serve a helpful purpose, although hopefully a temporary one, providing good prompts for editors to further and more precisely develop the topics.

FYI, I plan to complete out starter articles for the Grand Forks county NRHPs. These may provide basis for further discussion here or elsewhere. I hope you do not see the need to repeatedly point out the obvious, i.e. that the starter versions contain vague information or that they are not as perfect as you might wish. Also, while I have put in considerable effort to develop many Grand Forks and other articles to a pretty good state, I am not necessarily going to invest too much right away in these. I have been criticized on this page already, unfairly IMO, for what i have done, and where I have put in good writing effort i put in that has been largely dismissed. I will likely develop these further, but for the moment I am a bit de-motivated to put in some part of the writing effort that I would usually apply. Frankly, I don't want to put these out there for you to easily criticize as being the best i can do. A starter article is not that. No one needs to go on and on and rant about how if they wrote they would do better. Yes, you and I could do better with more time and effort and using the sources that I have added plus finding other sources using the convenient Find Sources searches I have set up at Talk pages, or otherwise. So just don't make snide remarks along those lines, please.

I'll pause now, will come back sometime later. -- do ncr  am  16:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, "can be an accurate, valid statement to have in a new article about an NRHP-listed historic place" doesn't cut it. Who on earth made that decision? It might be "strongly preferred" by you but it is strongly objected to by me: it is garbage and should not exist in that form. fix it or bin it, I say. If the bot is doing this then it needs sorting to stop this GIGO situation continuing. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Doncram, you have just significantly altered your post timed 16:41 after I had posted mine at 16:47. Why? Why not just start another post, perhaps with a "Sorry, I meant to add ..." Not that I'm trying to hit you but if I were then you seem to be a moving target. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sitush and others: I thought i revised my comment promptly and before there was any other edit on this page.  Following a general practice that I have observed Orlady following.  Since Sitush did reply apparently before my revision went through, but I did not encounter an edit conflict, I wonder, actually, if the mediawiki software has changed in recent months.


 * Thank you Sitush for being civil and not negatively accusatory in your comment about this. I appreciate the suggestion about using a "Sorry I meant to add..." type expression.   But, I am thinking the interspersed edits allowed by mediawiki would undermine how well that works, too.  What woulda been best would be if a) i got my revision in before you noticed anything and before you responded, or b) I wrote perfectly to start with.


 * Yes, frankly I do feel like a target posting here, at all. The rapidity of responses reflects what seems like a lot of anger here.  I think taking a discussion more slowly is probably a good idea.  I am going to walk away for a bit now, though I am sure I could reply to some other comments here already.  For example, about some excessive focus on an Iowa school article that happens to have some unusual complications about documents that are usually readable, turning out not to be readable, and where I think some Iowa editors were expected by me to be involved more.  It might be a separate discussion, about Davenport Iowa articles, different from Grand Forks North Dakota articles, because of the different local editor involvement.  I'll discuss more later.  Everyone, please chill a bit.  Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Doncram, please don't tell people to chill while you are creating stuff like Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures. Any anger is justified. Please stop creating these automated stubs with the ridiculous comments on their talk pages that others should clean up the mess. This article says structures "is or was" "a property" and the entire lede is about a data base, not the subject. It then says it's also known as something which already has an article. "Built or had other significance"? "Designed and/or built by"? Not to mention the caps and the fill-in-the-blanks in the ref. This makes WP look bad. I know you are capable of better. Station1 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Argh! That's over the top! I just now moved that page to User:Doncram/Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures, without a redirect (as is appropriate for a userfied article). --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Orlady, just stop it now. I restored the article already.  If you want to open an AFD, go ahead.  You are not entitled to remove an article like that.  Orlady, this is unacceptable behavior on your part.


 * Fine, others, if you wish to discuss that article, or, better to work to improve it. I am not wanting to participate here in a lot more discussion today, and in fact i cannot. -- do  ncr  am  18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved the article back to user space and protected it against page moves or recreation. Garbage like that does not belong in article space -- and you are not exactly a newbie who is entitled to a bit of deference while you clean up your first contribution. If you wish to file a complaint against me, that's your choice. --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, after a three month absence I stuck my nose back into Wikipedia. I went on a business trip last week and got some new pics I thought I might add.  But you all are still having the same disagreements you had three months ago, and three months before that, etc.  Obviously NO ONE IS GOING TO CHANGE HIS/HER MIND. I think you have two choices...keep on acting like a bunch of kids bickering back and forth, or just LIVE WITH EACH OTHER'S QUIRKS.  You can speculate on if a stub or a red-link is more welcoming, but whichever gets someone to knock on the door, they're not going to stay around long and listen to this.  Personally, as a user, I'd rather find an infobix worth of information when I was in a city I'd never been to that a list of red links that tell me nothing at all about why I'm taking a picture of a building.  All I can say is that I wish I did whatever it is that you all do for a living that gives you this kind of time to devote to what amounts to nonsense.  Lvklock (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am embarrassed that you come back and see this dispute going on. All i basically want to do is create and develop articles on these pretty non-controversial subjects, and to support editors like you who would add photos and otherwise also develop them. -- do  ncr  am  12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Can there not be a moratorium on creation of these articles until the issues are resolved? I just cannot see how the present form is acceptable and I am convinced that if a bot is involved then either (a) it can be recoded to do its job better, or (b) the usual rules pertaining to the use of bots should apply, ie: it is up to the bot user to take full responsibility for its actions (ie: not pass it off on to someone else). The more I browse round these things, the worse the situation seems to be. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice idea, but a moratorium on new NRHP articles is not acceptable. There has been much discussion over the years about NRHP articles in AFDs and otherwise;  it has virtually always been concluded that NRHP listings are Wikipedia-notable for several good reasons (that extensive documentation exists, that each has passed several levels of review by objective standards, etc.).


 * FYI, for several years there has been a off-wikipedia "NRHP infobox generator" which provided bot-like information based on the NRIS database, which many editors have cut-and-pasted from to create new articles. I happen to be using an improved, different program that provides a bit more, to start from a somewhat higher point.  Notably the articles in North Dakota which I create are started from the getgo with links to the specific, generally high-quality NRHP nomination documents.  And there are other improvements that were discussed at wt:NRHP during its development to this point.  I will continue to improve my program, but for now am completing out the Grand Forks articles from its output that is linked from Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota. -- do  ncr  am  12:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant "creation by doncram", not a blanket moratorium. It is the ones which you create that seem to be the focus of issues. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

unjustified move
Orlady, I asked you not to post at my Talk page. You just did. Please don't. Following is copy of what Orlady posted there. -- do ncr  am  18:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures

''Based on discussion that you are well aware of at User talk:Orlady, I moved this page to User:Doncram/Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures. There are sound reasons for this. I have reverted your move back to article space and protected it against additional page moves. Further attempts by you to force garbage into article space may result in sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)''

My response: That is an unacceptable use of Administrative powers, to remove the article from mainspace and to pagemove protect it. It is unreasonable also for you to make threats. The article is a valid article, with sources, and under development, along with all other Grand Forks North Dakota NRHP articles. It is valid even if it were not under development and active discussion.

I seriously don't have time for this now. I was hoping for some productive discussion, above, but I especially don't have time for this nonsense. It'll be addressed later.

Orlady, i formally request that you move the article back. I assume you won't, however. Please state for the record what is your reasoning for the extraordinary action, for later discussion. -- do ncr  am  18:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That article was a piece of garbage that never should have been placed in article space, for specific reasons given above by Station1 and for general reasons that have been given to you over and over again (ad infinitum if not also ad nauseam) by numerous users. Your move-warring is unacceptable. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In case it's not clear to you, that was a warning. I don't know where to post warnings for you, other than your talk page. Would you prefer that I post at [{WP:ANI]] about your behavior, and not notify you on your talk page?


 * Additionally, I am unable to find the "discussion" of the article that you refer to in your complaint. --Orlady (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think doncram might mean here, above. Although it is less a discussion and more of a statement. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You did not block it for his "move-warring". You blocked it because you don't like the content.  As far as I know, Doncram has never been blocked for writing a stub.  He's been blocked for (IMO) responding in kind to those of you who hammer him relentlessley, negatively, and often downright nastily for writing what are, by wikipedia policy, acceptable STUB articles.  Then, when he responds in kind toward you, he gets jumped all over and blocked for "personal attacks".  I do not see that his tone with you is any worse than yours with him...in fact, in this current discussion, I'd say quite the opposite.  I do not believe you can block him because you do not like the content of what he produces.  I do not believe that one reversion of you move is "warring", especially in the context of "hey, we're discussing that here".  I DO agree that it seems to have been a misuse of administrative powers for you to block the move in this situation. I also believe that you both truly believe you are right and are trying to work to make a better Wikipedia.  But, once again, he/she who is stubbornest will win, or drive everyone else away trying.  Consider that a warning of sorts, Doncram and Orlady.  One day you may find that no one is willing to play anywhere that both of you are, and you two can have the playground all to yourselves.  Lvklock (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lvklock, a stub article is one that has very little content. No article in article space should contain empty blanks such as dates in the form "19__", nor speculative/either-or statements such as "From that status, it is clear that the property was nominated for the National Register but it is not clear whether the property is currently listed on the National Register" and "It was built or has other significance in 1936, 1937, and 1939." Additionally, please note that I did not block Doncram; I merely prevented him from restoring a garbage stub to article space until he convinces an administrator that the page deserves to be moved into article space. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct, in my haste I did say you couldn't block HIM for.... I apologize, I did not mean to imply that you had.  However, I still think you misused Administrative tools.  On this very talk page I see disagreement about whether or not a "speculative/either-or statement" is garbage, or actually just a factual, supportable statement of what is at that moment known by the author.  Sounds like a content dispute to me.  I thought the way to handle an article that one editor thought was "garbage" and another thought had value was by RfD, not by unilateral Adminstrator action.   And, from what I can gather, he is clearly working on this group of stubs.  I saw more than one mention above of IMMEDIATE criticism while he was developing these stubs, before his process had a chance to advance.  I know you and others don't agree with his process of building the stubs in mainspace, but, again, I do not think that is disallowed by Wikipedia policy.  So, for you to summarily move it that way, when it had just been mentioned and there was, indeed, a very high likelihood at that given time that the stub would be rapidly improved seems to me to be throwing gas on the fire and purposefully goading Doncram, which does not seem to be behavior becoming to an Administrator.  If I were in your position, I would distance myself from taking ANY Administrative action in a situation regarding Doncram just to avoid an appearance of impropriety.  Just my opinion. Lvklock (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You (or Doncram or anyone else) are free to seek the opinion of other administrators regarding the acceptability of that page for inclusion in Wikipedia article space. --Orlady (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind also that if the article was correct (I don't know that it was) there is already an article about this topic under another title. We can't have two articles about the same thing. Station1 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we presume that you are referring to River Cities Speedway? (I also looked at North Dakota State Fair, but that's not it, since it indicates that the state fair is held in Minot, not Grand Forks.) --Orlady (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Station1 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go further into the details here. But yes, there is a natural question of relationship of the NRHP-nominated property vs. apparently pre-existing article at River Cities Speedway.  As NRHP editors know, the opening of NRHP articles often leads to discovery of similar topics and then either to mergers or to determination that there are distinct topics usefully kept separate.  Opening the NRHP article is a good way to proceed, as I did, unaware at first of the other article.  Note, I included wikilinks to "River Cities Speedway" and to another phrase in the NRHP article, and found one was a bluelink and one was a redlink.  Which is, I expect, why you know that there is an article about the Speedway.  I don't know yet whether there should be one article or two;  note the Speedway article did not cover WPA structures which are apparently the focus of the NRHP listing.  The right place to discuss these details is at the mainspace Talk page of the NRHP article, attracting attention of local editors and building a record in mainspace to inform future editors about the facts and decisions taken.  The article and its Talk page should be restored to mainspace for that to happen. -- do  ncr  am  09:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we "don't know yet whether there should be one article or two", that should be figured out first. If you need to discuss in mainspace, rather than researching it yourself, you can use the talk page of the existing article. Or ask at a wikiprojects talk page. Station1 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

contested moves and redirects eliminating articles from mainspace
Orlady, I object to this edit "userifying" the article formerly at Clifford Annex, and this edit "userifying" the article formerly at Flatiron Building (Grand Forks, North Dakota). And I object to your removing other articles from mainspace by redirects, namely this edit removing by redirect an article at Edward L. Ashton (engineer) and this edit removing Elks Lodge (Greenwood, Mississippi). These four are additional removals of articles from mainspace in addition to your recent, contested 1st removal and 2nd removal by you of article at Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures, followed by this use of admin power to move-protect the userified version of the article.

All were articles that i created or developed. You have acknowledged in discussion sections above that you are following my edits and also running searches to find articles I have edited to which you might object. None of these removals were justified, in my view, and particularly not without a proper AFD process or a Requested Move process. Are you trying to goad me, personally, with these removals?

The first two are articles about historic sites in Grand Forks County that were NRHP-listed but were removed from the National Register. There are dozens or hundreds of Wikipedia articles on formerly listed NRHP places. There could possibly be useful discussion to be had, in some central forum, about how to best to present these in Wikipedia, but your unilateral actions to remove them is not the appropriate way forward. As I believe you know from previous discussion(s), Orlady, I have developed such articles deliberately and believe they contribute positively to Wikipedia. As you know, Orlady, there in fact exists multiple internet pages which incorrectly imply and/or outright assert that Clifford Annex and Flatiron Building are currently National Register-listed places (and incorrectly asserting that they were NRHP-listed on the date that they were in fact delisted). I believe that emphatic, short Wikipedia articles such as I created for these is useful for correcting the public record. These are sourced, valid articles. About other demolished buildings or formerly listed historic sites, you have yourself argued, on multiple occasions (that I could document if you dispute this), that notability is not temporary.

Also, the two Grand Forks ones are 2 of 6 NRHP-delisted properties in the county, indexed from National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota. The Grand Forks NRHP list-article and its linked articles are, broadly, under discussion, here on this Talk page and also by my invitation at wt:NRHP (by a previous now-archived discussion and by this invitation for discussion, so far without other comments: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places). I meant to complete starting the Grand Forks articles, to continue developing them a bit up to a certain point, and to followup at that help wanted section for more comments about what would then be a completed body of work. (To be clear, it is not completed.) It is not right for you to unilaterally remove these articles.

The other two were not NRHP-listed places and could have some useful discussion perhaps in AFDs, though I do not welcome your opening AFDs about them and forcing discussion upon them in a rushed way right now (given several open discussions/disputes between you and me involving a good number of editors already). The Ned Ashton engineer topic is about a pretty clearly Wikipedia-notable person, which I started as a stub with edit summary pointing to another editor's writing. It would be better to raise some concern by a Talk page comment and/or by a refimprove tag, expand tag, or other tags on the article. Likewise for the Elks Lodge(s) in Greenwood, Mississippi.

Please desist from removing articles from mainspace of either of these broad types, where you may assume the removal is contested. -- do ncr  am  08:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the pages that I moved to User:Doncram/Clifford Annex and User:Doncram/Flatiron Building (Grand Forks, North Dakota), I visited those pages in hopes of editing out the noninformation (like "is or was a property") to create a solid stub, but I couldn't find enough solid encyclopedic information to write a sentence from. As for Elks Lodge (Greenwood, Mississippi), I redirected it to Mississippi Blues Trail after I realized that the substance of the article consisted only of a quotation of the text of a Blues Trail historical marker -- the article indicated uncertainty as to whether the Elks Lodge building exists. I am not aware of any principle that says that individual historical markers are notable, nor that it is acceptable for an encyclopedia article to consist of a verbatim quotation from an historical marker. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, after I first looked at Edward L. Ashton (engineer), I searched for some additional information for the article, such as whether he is alive or dead (the lead sentence said "is or was"), when he was born, or career details other than his 14 years at University of Iowa. After finding nothing -- and observing that the entire contents of the "biographical" article were included in Ned Ashton House, I redirected the page to Ned Ashton House. I couldn't see any purpose (or indeed, any evidence of notability) in having a separate article.


 * Doncram, you may have missed Orlady's comment above - "You (or Doncram or anyone else) are free to seek the opinion of other administrators regarding the acceptability of that page for inclusion in Wikipedia article space". So why not do it if you feel so strongly about this? Going round in circles here. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yikes, i did not expect an instant reply at this time of day, and i slightly amended my comment without edit conflict before seeing your reply. Sitush, since there have been accusations further above against me for amending my own edits, could you please clarify for the record whether my amendment changes anything for your response?  Thanks.


 * Yes, I will seek other administrators' actions, but i can't do everything at once. In this comment I am asking Orlady to stop with the contested removals, which is different. -- do  ncr  am  08:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This time of day is 10 am here. I know some people think we Brits are lazy, but ...  No probs with the ec. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, asking Orlady to stop seems to me to be pointless. Firstly, because you have already stated your objections; and secondly, because at present there is a fundamental dispute regarding whether or not the moves should have been made. My suggestion to you would be to do the obvious, as already suggested by Orlady: ask some other admins to take a look at her actions. Otherwise, as I said a couple of hours ago, we're just gonna go round in circles. FWIW, if I thought that I had the policy backing then I certainly would have done the moves that Orlady has made because the pages are unbelievably bad, but I'm pretty green on the policies regarding page moves and for this reason alone would have avoided it (although there is always WP:BOLD, I guess). I suspect your argument that even a ridiculously crap page is ok if its subject is verifiably notable will win the day, but only if you can get over the hurdle of why you are using such a poor bot and therefore creating vast amounts of unnecessary work for others. - Sitush (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I assume you would further suggest it is a waste of time to call attention to fundamental policy Civility, which specifically enough argues that editors should not refer derogatorily to others' work as "crap". Specifically in Civility, see:

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness
 * (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
 * (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
 * (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
 * (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

2. Other uncivil behaviors
 * (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;
 * (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings;
 * Sitush, I do appreciate that you acknowledge you are "green on the policies regarding page moves" and that you are otherwise new to some issues here which are old hat to Orlady, Dudemanfellabra, Lvklock, and myself. However, would you please yourself refrain from falling to the level of commentary otherwise shown on this page.  Just because Orlady has repeatedly here and elsewhere used "garbage" and "embarrassing" and "crap" and "[expletive deleted]" does not mean it is acceptable behavior. -- do  ncr  am  11:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not lecture me - "crap" is a generalised term about the article. Call it rubbish, baloney, anything you want: the thing was pretty much meaningless. FWIW, I think I called it garbage before Orlady did. Until you stop refactoring you are in no position to lecture.


 * Now, are you going to do something about the moves or not? There is no point in you continuing the discussion here (and taking everything round the houses in the process). If you do not take the discussion to an appropriate forum, such as those you have previously mentioned, then you have de facto conceded the issue. Your choice. Basically, as we say over here, "put up or shut up". That also, is not an offensive phrase, BTW; it has the same sort of meaning as "put your money where your mouth is". - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We might try once again to come up with a minimum stub standard at the NRHP project. Doncram will ignore any such standard, but it'll at least give admins a framework with which to handle this issue in the future.  Bms4880 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Might be worth a go but what happens in the interval? Mind, if Doncram ignores a standard then there will surely be a likelihood of his edits being disruptive. For now, I don't see why he cannot amend the bot, or better still desist from adding new articles for the time being and promote his opinion in the project discussion. WP is timeless, there is a clear general problem here and therefore creating more problems (as in, more articles) seems itself to be disruptive. In an odd sort of way, this kinda amounts to spamming at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just spotted this - AN. I'll be having a think. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)