User talk:Orlady/Archive 17

Question for you re: ACCSC
Hi Orlady,

The Wikipedia article on ACCSC is in stub condition, and currently has only one source. I've tracked down a handful of additional reliable sources, and have written up a revision draft in my sandbox at here. I'd update the article with the text in the draft myself, but I have a WP:COI as a university accredited by the ACCSC is a client of my employer. Therefore, I'd prefer to exercise caution by refraining from making direct edits myself. I thought I'd reach out to you because I saw that you've made a few helpful edits to this article in the past.

Would you mind taking a look at dthe draft and, if you feel it would bring the article closer in line with Wikipedia's content standards, update the "live" ACCSC article to reflect the changes proposed in the draft?

Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello there,
 * Thanks for making the first part of this update--it is much appreciated.


 * The main reasoning behind the revised text in the draft is to ensure information accuracy (based on WP:RS. The draft is a bit more clear in describing what ACCSC is and what it does. For example, the existing ACCSC article states that it accredits "non-university postsecondary colleges;" however this is no longer accurate, as ACCSC does accredit schools with University status (source/example: Florida Dept of Education).


 * As you review the remaining portion of the draft and consider making the updates I've proposed, please don't hesitate to ask if there is any way I can be of help. Thanks again for taking time out of your day to consider these edits! Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Orlady--just wanted to see if you would be able to review the last remaining portion of the edit request for the ACCSC article. It consists of changes/additions to about two sentences of text, and I've tried to format the draft so all of the heavy lifting (source citation formatting, etc.) is already taken care of. If you're otherwise occupied (certainly understandable!) and would like me to ask for assistance elsewhere, just let me know. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message! As a last step, can you make these four simple grammatical corrections to the article?


 * sentence #1: change "an private" to "a private"


 * sentence #1: change "postsecondary" to "post-secondary"


 * sentence #2: change "it" to "It" (so the first word in the sentence begins with a capital letter)


 * Last sentence: remove the word "currently" (as the timeframe is already established at the beginning of this sentence)


 * Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Done! --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate how helpful you've been. I have access to some of the more advanced research tools such as Lexis Nexis, so if there is ever anything I can help you out with in the future (such as tracking down an obscure source for an article), feel free to ask. Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cholodny Went SYK
See my comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Cholodny Went model. It is not like me to slow down the DYK process, but if you check the article history you will see I added a lot to the version originally approved in my attempt to get my head around the subject and then clarify it. This is quite dry and factual, I think, but should be checked. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Yoshitaka Fujii
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 :- ) Don 22:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Orlady/List
You may need to expand this page with a pile of round barn articles; see many pages linked by List of round barns. The Ohio barns are particularly an issue, since I've put photos on the NR county lists for all of them, as well as changing the links, but you'd never know that to look at the articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In my mind, the big issue with the individual barn articles that I checked was the complete lack of awareness of the entries on the county NR lists. They do have piles of draft information that's been dumped; see what I had to do to the Bert Leedy Round Barn.  I must admit that the only ones I checked are the barns I know because I've photographed them.  Don't bother with doing anything to the Ohio barns; when I requested the nomination for one of them from the NR some time ago, they just mailed me the MPS form, so I guess that there weren't individual nominations for them.  As a result, I'm thinking of just doing a single article on the MPS (comparable to Historic Firehouses of Louisville), where I can put common information and include what slight information about each one I can find.  Doesn't help that several are (for reasons I can't understand) marked as address-restricted, including this one, which you can see from 1.5 miles away.  Sources I've seen on it say that it's potentially the country's largest round barn, and the "this one" link is to a Commons category (the owners let me walk around their barnyard taking closeup pictures), but you'd know nothing of that from the current article.  Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I performed a history merge for the two userspace subpages. Page 2 is now a redlink.  Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I agree thoroughly. I don't pay any attention to it anymore; whenever I move a page, I just leave it in (Article) and add the namespace prefix if necessary.  Protection was temporary: I didn't want edit conflicts while I was performing the merge.  I can never remember what protections endure through deletion/undeletion and what don't, so when I was done, I protected it for one second to ensure that all protection was off.  Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it's useful to know that user account "List of round barns" is not registered. One less page to worry about... --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True :-) I'm hoping to get more information on the Littleton Round Barn before very long; I know the family who owns it and have sent an email asking if they know about documentation.  Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Clay
Hi. I think I have resolved concerns on Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Clay if you can take another look. :) --LauraHale (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tivoli Building (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Regina Bunch
Hi-I noticed you started the article about Dewayne Bunch who died today. I started an article about his wife Regina Bunch who succeeded her husband in the Kentucky House of Representatives. Please make any improvement to the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's sad news. Thanks for the heads-up. --Orlady (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pakistan Zindabad
Orlady, I was wondering if you would consider reviewing this old DYK nomination from June 22. It needs a fresh, uninvolved eye, though I think the most volatile of the concerns with one of the hooks has been addressed. Please let me know. (LauraHale has already declined, and as I've promised to obtain that independent review, I need to find someone to do it.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

IP at University of Northern Virginia
You blocked for 24 hours. The IP is the University, and of course being used for socking. I was going to give a longer block when I found yours. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please extend the block if you see fit. I took the action that I did in order to put a quick end to the high level of edit-warring activity occurring at University of Northern Virginia, but I included a block on registered users due to the involvement of registered accounts. Considering this from the bright light of the next day, I believe a longer block would be in order, along with an SPI to confirm the obvious regarding this IP, Bwanniac, FBIscreen, and Khannj. --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of St. Mark's Pro-Cathedral (Hastings, Nebraska)
Hello! Your submission of St. Mark's Pro-Cathedral (Hastings, Nebraska) 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! Cmprince (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rogue editor on Jessica Stam article
There is a conflict of interest editor on the Jessica Stam article. "18:12, 16 July 2012‎ Leslie789 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,678 bytes) (-6,310)‎ . . (I work directly with Jessica Stam and she has asked me to update this page because she did not like it.....The changes I am making have been approved by the model herself as I have sent her a rough draft to approve before making these changes) (undo)"

Why people believe they are responsible for their own biographies on wikipedia I will never get. --Wlmg (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on DYK prep area issue
Hi. As an active participant in DYK discussion, if you have a minute, can you drop by Wikipedia talk:Did you know and offer an opinion on how to address this? I'd rather get it dealt with sooner rather than later as I feel like the sheer volume will require a discussion as all people involved in building prep areas will need to be aware of whatever decision is reached. --LauraHale (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Albert Goldfield
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Neat script
Hi Orlady, in cases like the one you filed with lots of accounts there is a script which comes in handy. If you place

...in your monobook.js it will allow you to easily see at a glance who is blocked. You can see this for reference.

It helps in more than just SPI cases and I find it is useful when hunting socks as well. Every little bit helps. :) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St. Mark's Pro-Cathedral (Hastings, Nebraska)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat
Hi Orlady, I would like to nominate you for the position of bureaucrat. Please let me know if you would like this. Keepscases (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Three Aussie Olympians in one set
Orlady, why is this a problem? Or, perhaps, why is the solution you've proposed superior to the what we had before. I thought we wanted to time the Olympians so they were listed when their particular country was awake. Moving Chloe (Irish) to the Australian time slot means she's up starting at one in the morning.

The move also isolates three male Olympians in prep 1 and three females in prep 3; I think that's worse than three Australians, frankly. YMMV, of course, but I'm going to try to come up with something that balances male and female and doesn't bury Chloe. However, given the greater number of Australian hooks compared to the others, perhaps they're the ones that will have to occasionally run at off hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like I got home too late. I'm still going to make a proposal for a move, once I figure it out, but it'll need an admin to accomplish. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I responded at WT:DYK --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see your point about the three Aussies. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stuck
Orlady, while it would make sense to move the Template:Did you know nominations/Lucinda Whitty, Olivia Price, Nina Curtis hook to Prep 2, I can't do it because it was my suggested ALT, and while Laura thought it was an okay rewording, I'd be happier if the promoter took an independent look at it. Are you available to take a quick look now and promote if appropriate? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you. Hawkeye7 has just promoted them. I guess I should learn to let things happen in their own time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. Having participated in DYK back in the days when we had just one prep area, where we assembled each set of hooks a few hours (or less) before moving it to the main page (I'm not exaggerating -- look at the histories of the various prep areas and queues to see when they were created), I am often amused and amazed by the urgency with which people now view the assembly of queues that won't go up until 3 days in the future. --Orlady (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the modern Twitter/Facebook era, when everything is expected to happen NOW, but preferably sooner ;) I am old enough to remember reading imported copies of Byte when Steve Ciarcia, Don Lancaster and Hal Chamberlin were in full flow. One or other of them - and I think it was Steve - was (to me) an early proponent of the capitalised "Real Soon Now" phrase. Those were the days. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Larry Robinson (chemist)
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for May Justus
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Berberis koreana
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of María José Reyes and Juan Duarte
Can you take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of María José Reyes and Juan Duarte? The BLP issues make me a bit uncomfortable finishing the review. : / --LauraHale (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for the review assist. The article bothered me on some level I couldn't quite put my finger on and you did a good job of articulating what that was.

LauraHale (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 

Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Mazatlán
Orlady, both LauraHale and I have had trouble with this one, and I was wondering if you could take a crack at it. I tried interesting Crisco 1492 in it, but without any success, so I'm hoping you'll be able to sort it out. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Murder of Reyes and Duarte
Hi! I responded to your comments at the DYK review page of Murder of María José Reyes and Juan Duarte. Cheers. Diego Grez (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Melissa Breen
Orlady, might you let LauraHale know—on her talk page where she'll see it—what changes you were looking for in the article for your ALT2 to work? I'd be happy to vet the hook as an outside reviewer, but you clearly saw that the article needed changes to accommodate the hook (and which sources?), and no edits have been done. It's listed under August 2, which means time is of the essence and it may not run as early as hoped, but the next set runs before the August 3 events in London start. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Melissa Breen
I think I have fixed the prose to be accurate. i don't know where the Asia thing got in or how I badly misread that text. --LauraHale (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Julia Hargreaves (under August 3 in Olympics hooks)
Orlady, since I ultimately passed this hook, I can't also promote it, which is why I didn't start filling Prep 2: I couldn't add her, though she seemed next in line. (The days in the Olympics section seem to be a mixture of people who are competing that day, or people who are competing on the next day.) Can you promote her? Until someone does, I'm sort of stuck when it comes to assembling prep sets. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since that first set for August 4 contained one Aussie Olympian, I figured it could only take one more Aussie. And since there is a surfeit of Aussie synchronized swimmers, I figured that each set needs one of them from here until eternity. I guess I can put Julia into the next set. --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll make sure to take a synchronized hook in each set I do until they run out. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jessica Trengove
Orlady, can you please take a look at this? It was initially approved, but then Drmies cut it down to 800 characters and Laura built it up again to over thrice that length, but there hasn't been another review since that major change, even if no icons have been used since Dr Blofeld's initial tick prior to the cuts. I've just taken out a couple of pieces of what seemed to me to be trivia, and also removed a few duplicative sources (including two versions of the same source, in Spanish), but that's as far as I can go. I wanted to get this in and among the August 4 hooks, but it shouldn't be promoted as it stands. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given how you left it then, with a Symbol possible vote.svg icon, I was very surprised to see that you have just promoted it to Prep 4. Your choice, of course, since you were the one who stopped it from being promoted in the first place. Just not at all what I expected. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I turned soft after the backlog of Aussie Olympic hooks had eased up. And I did expand the article with information on her Olympic performance. --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You softie. ;-D


 * I was glad to see Trengove came within 15 seconds of her best (and, I think, only previous) marathon time there. Thanks for adding her time to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Forbes' Quarry
Thanks for your review and additions to Forbes' Quarry! You may want to add to Gibraltar 1 which is about the actual neanderthal fossil. Thanks, --Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 23:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic hook sameness
I'm staring at the next several hooks, almost all of which seem to start and wondering what to do.
 * ... that 2012 Australian/British Olympic [sport] Firstname Lastname

We have three remaining synchronized swimmers, all Australian (including the double entry you created—thank you!), and four Australian canoeists, alll but one of which use that pattern. I plan to sweeping up the British steeplechaser, who uses the same pattern, in the next prep, since it'll still be daytime in the UK then, and there are two Americans who use a different hook pattern and will do for the following two sets, which sees us through the synchs but leaves us with another canoeist. Any advice? This next set, if we want one synch, one canoe, and the steeplechase, would mean all three hooks would have the same basic opening, though I suppose Rachel Lovell, which is not, could be promoted instead... but not by me, since I approved it. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Frankie Owen
Orlady, what should be done to close out this one? You combined it into a double hook with Tamika Domrow, and that double is now in Prep 1; I've promoted Tamika, but I'm not quite sure what the proper procedure is here.

Do we just promote, with a note that it was combined rather than done separately in the edit summary, or is some other description or parameter supposed to be used in this special case. (I can't imagine "rejected" could be accurate, since part of the hook was used, and the article is being featured in that double hook.) Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought about this problem when I was proposing the dual hook. I would close it as a "Yes", and say in the edit summary that it was combined with the other hook as a double hook and moved to the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Samantha Reid (synchronized swimmer)
Orlady, are you putting an end to this nomination, too? You didn't use an icon, and without that definitive marking I don't feel I can avoid promoting it, even if I agree with most of what you've said. (I have removed the 2008 talk and trip from the article as trivia.) Reid's the last synchronized swimmer, and if she's going to go up it should probably be in the next set. Please let me know, and also what you think should be done with the Trengove template. Do we leave them there under the event date, start a section for Olympics articles that have significant problems, or what?

Incidentally, starting tomorrow, I'm going to have much less online time for over a week, which pretty much takes me out of putting together prep sets until after the final Olympics sets have been made up. I wanted to warn you, since assemblers have been thin on the ground the past few days. At least a number of hooks I've given final approval to will now have a chance for promotion! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think it's deserving of main-page exposure, I won't stand in your way. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't decide after clearing out all the deadwood cites; I don't see that it's any worse than most of her others. I am quite annoyed that it cited the same story from two different websites (only the headlines were different), and neither was strictly necessary since she had another two cites already covering the same short sentence. It's not the first time I've found this in a four- or five-cite block. However, I'm getting tired, so I'm stopping for the night; this is definitely not worth losing any more sleep over. It'll be up to whoever finishes off Prep 2 overnight (or at least over my night), while I'm catching some badly needed snooze time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

National Course Atlas
The National Course Atlas article has been deleted, but I would like to request wp:userfication of this article, and I will seek notability sources (perhaps on paper rather than the Internet) to improve the article for eventual return to namespace. Can you help me?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I put a copy of the latest version of the article in your userspace at User:Dthomsen8/National Course Atlas. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Anne Hathaway [Shakespear]
I don't know if this is the best way to communicate with you. However, I've added significant content to this article and have attempted to cite as much as possible. Let me know if I need to do more. Thanks. JSchneiderWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by JschneiderWiki (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The article appeared on DYK for 8 hours earlier today. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cognitive vulnerability
Orlady, this is a puzzling one, and the reviewer is clearly someone who isn't able to handle the nuances. (The hook had been passed, despite not having article bolding.) I've put a on it due to the hook. Basically, what seems to have happened was the nominator renamed the Vulnerability article to Cognitive vulnerability in mid-July, and then effectively replaced the text of the old article with new text on August 5, taking the prose character total from 3327 to 7537, about 2.3x. The contention is that this is effectively a new article, and should only have to meet the 1500 character number. This should probably get a complete review, as I'm dubious that the reviewer knew what to look for. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Orlady, I have added the bold into the hook directing to the main article. I didn't notice that mistake. Now I have fixed it. This article is a part of APS project in our university, UTSC. We are students on campus who use academic resources to contribute to wikipedia. I stand by the article's genuine information and the information in the article is cited with well legit resources.  The topic of this article is proposed to be more focused to psychology on 15th july, that was when our campus instructed us to decide on our project and we started working on the project now. And this is our final project.  Our final shot to make it on DYK. I havent made to DYK once through my entire experience in the wikipedia course.  This will be my last shot.  I think this article has the potential to be recognized. It is within the neutral point of view that is under the five pillars of wikipedia.  Many people can figure out about things that co-relate to depression and help someone in their lives suffering from it. We can make a difference.  Khyati Gupta  (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a mess. I'm going to have to a history split to recover the Vulnerability article that was overwritten. --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Orlady, sorry for causing intense inconvenience. I thank you for your consideration for creating this new article and also splitting the history. Now that it is a new article, is there a possibility to reconsider the DYK nomination for the article? Thank you! Khyati Gupta  (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In the know?
Hello - Please excuse my wik-ignorance. I can't help wondering why I tend to fail to receive credit posts for DYK etc. I did succeed in noticing that Ettore Petrolini was on the Main Page today as a DYK. I think I also managed to spot Giulietta Guicciardi's DYK back in March, when I slightly wondered why I wasn't credited despite being one of the main contributors to the article (and I think also the first to propose the new page). I seem to be doing something wrong and am wondering how to fix it. This is more than a curiosity. For instance I was a major contributor to bringing New Forest pony up to FA, but I'm not sure how to get informed when the article goes on the Main Page. Any advice appreciated. Thank you, —Misty (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (watching) regarding Giulietta, I nominated before you added substantially, and failed to add you to the nomination later. I can give you credit if you a want it. There is no extra credit for suggesting an article first ;) If there was I would get it, suggested her on 4 January, you on 5 January ;) - In general: you get credit if you are listed in the nomination as a contributor, the system doesn't go in the article history and doesn't read minds, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. That was rather what I thought, so I personally added myself in as a contributor on the Petrolini DYK template. Reading your post carefully I now realize that here again I may have missed the boat due to not being mentioned in the original(?) nomination. Now I'm wondering what I can do to be informed about New Forest pony. —Misty (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You or someone else could still have included you afterwards. Orlady advised me that I could give credit to someone who added substantially to an article 15 minutes after it appeared, so I will take the liberty now to do that for Giulietta, in recognition not only of your help with that article but also of your immense effort to get Beethoven's sonata named decently ;) I hope you will get the other one fixed, but FA and DYK are completely different. Where you included in the list of nominators? If yes, you will be notified before it appears (but that may be short notice), if not talk to the nominator, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for all your efforts Gerda to try to help me get my dim head around this. A hard task, I fear. I've learnt today that the details of these BOT thingees can be a bit confusing to the common man... Speaking of commoners, I'll contact Pesky about the pony. I'd got a bit tired of feeling I'd have to look out for the pony cantering through because otherwise, blink and I'd surely miss it... simply because I hadn't done something I should have done, but wasn't quite sure what. Thanks too to Orlady for her hospitality and patience! —Misty( MORN ) 21:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [EC] A 'bot added the credits for Ettore Petrolini and signed them on my behalf, as I was the admin who moved the hook set from the prep area to the queues. MistyMorn was not included in the credits, although the name was displayed in the nomination template, because the user's name had not been added to the list of "DYKmake" credits in the nomination template. (See the "DYKmake" credit list in this old version of the template.) I've added a credit for Ettore Petrolini on MistyMorn's talk page. As an aside, it's unusual to have 5 people collaborate on a new article about a noncurrent topic! --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know anything about the situation with New Forest pony. What do you want to be informed about? --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you mi Orlady. I accept that these processes are beyond my human ken! Regarding the pony, I think the best thing for me to do is to contact the nominator herself, who I think will certainly keep me informed. Thanks again, —Misty (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, . —Misty (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Could you comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National_Register of Historic Places?

This is regarding a key part of the upcoming WLM-US photo contest. Smallbones (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pindar's First Olympian Ode
Orlady, I just happened to notice that you promoted this hook to Prep 4, where it will run the morning of August 11 London time (BST). The specific request was that it be running during the closing ceremonies on August 12, and they begin at 2100 BST, or 2000 UTC. This would, in fact, put it four slots later, the one that would run at 1700 London time that day.

As you can see, I mistakenly promoted it a month early, and was glad it was pulled over concerns over the original image (since replaced). I'm very happy to see that you made it a lead hook, but it should really be the next iteration of Prep 4, 32 hours later than the current one, that gets this hook. Can we do that here? I didn't want to pull the hook back without checking first, but I'd very much like it to run then. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed now. I got confused by the sudden shortage of Olympics hooks on the noms page, and I started putting up what was available. It seems that another editor accidentally removed August 11 from that page before the hooks for that day got processed. Now that I've restored those noms, I need to go back and put up some hooks that need to run that day. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And excellent save on August 11. Looks like a lot of male marathoners in that day's templates, but since the marathon isn't being run until August 12 at 1100 BST, those can be spread out over a few prep areas, including upcoming ones. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we've already had one instance where an athlete's hook ran the day of their event (instead of the day before, which was supposed to be the plan), and the athlete won gold and generated controversy, resulting in a huge number of hits on the day the hook ran. I'd like for that not to happen again. August 11 was one of the more fully populated days for scheduled Olympics hooks, but the slots for the day were in danger of filling up with late-approved hooks that could run any time during the Olympic period. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Strayer
Hi Orlady. Is it in line with WP policy to highlight Silberman's 2009 compensation that includes $40 million in stock options that fully vest in 2019 and not mention his 2010 compensation of $1.5 million? Aren't you skewing the article toward the sensational, in the same manner as Doonesbury? Oops, I see you're adding more detail. No doubt you'll address this. TimidGuy (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 18:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter
Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.

It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tivoli Theatre (Chattanooga, Tennessee)
Hello, Orlady. I am responding to your comments about Chattanooga's Tivoli Theatre. I just have one question. Will you delete the article because of the article text being very similar to the source even though it's cited? I would like to be able to keep the article on wikipedia so that people can learn more about the Tivoli. Thanks for answering my question and I really enjoy Wikipedia. Jay (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing sources is not sufficient for avoiding plagiarism or copyright infringement. Because Wikipedia cannot republish copyrighted material, portions of that article could be deleted for infringing copyright. However, the entire article would not be deleted, because parts of it are OK. It should not be difficult to rewrite the contents -- is this a problem for you? --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Top 10 books in sociology
Thanks for the section. FYI, I went and added a note about it to each book in question, stubbing The Structure of Social Action in the process (I'll try to expand and DYK it over the weekend, you are more than welcome to help). I have not added anything to the author's pages, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great! Several of the articles about authors and books already mention the list. --Orlady (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Symbols of Francoism
I wonder if you could fix this article to back up the Template:Did you know nominations/Symbols of Francoism hook. It just needs one cite, and you have identified several possibilities. Once done, I can approve the DYK, which looks o.k. to me otherwise. If you check User talk:ECPowell90, possibly the user felt a bit slapped around on their first article. They may also feel they have to stick to an exact translation of the Spanish version. Whatever. We could use more translations. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear -- I see what you mean about the reception this contributor was given. I've added one citation to a source regarding the law. I think it supports the hook fact. However, that source does not solve the whole problem with the article sourcing. There are entire sections without citations, including "Monuments (War memorials) and Plaques to “Those Fallen for God and for Spain"" and "Toponomy". Those omissions need to be resolved for the article to qualify for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The guidelines leave some latitude on sourcing and the content without cites seems plausible and uncontroversial, but I suppose for the front page we should apply higher standards. For some reason this is not a topic I want to spend much time on, and getting sources for all the assertions would take a fair amount of work.  I ticked the DYK when I saw your fix, then unticked when I saw this comment.  Not sure what to do. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aymatth, you're all over the place, aren't you--we should really stop meeting like this. Drmies (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is interesting and important, but it has a lot of problems. (It's probably unrealistic to think that articles of this size and scope can be ported over from another language, published, and successfully spiffed up in the timeframe required for DYK.) Do you know any Spanish-translation mavens who could undertake to clean this one up fast (including adding sources for the unsourced content)? --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me take a shot at it - see how far I can get. Tracking down the sources is the hard part: it is a broad topic.  But compared to many articles, this one is well-referenced!  Aymatth2 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Help! Something orange needs your help!
Hey Orlady, it's late, but is this a good time to cash in two years of UT-Knoxville credit and ask you for an orange favor? The Dutch hockey team is getting ready to play their final game for a gold medal, and their coach (Template:Did you know nominations/Paul van Ass) is still languishing on Template talk:Did you know. Can you shove him in somewhere for tomorrow? Thanks... Drmies (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. (People need to put the approval tick next to their "approval" statements.) --Orlady (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks! Hey, I was at UT when Phil Fulmer was still king; how the mighty have fallen. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But, unfortunately, UT hasn't given up on its focus on sports over academics. --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still the South. That's par for the course, and I'm not saying that just because I'm an Alabama grad. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Preston University
Hi, Orlady, the material you added to the article violates WP:PRIMARY as it requires interpretation of the legal document. Not surprisingly, based on a quick search, I could find no secondary source about what happened in December 2011, or in May 2012 when the Statement of Issues was filed.

It's an odd document and I am unfamiliar with the regulations involved. The document says the application was denied; yet the purpose of the hearing appears to obtain a denial from the dirrector of the BPPE. I'm assuming Wenzel acts as a representative of DCA seeking an "official" denial from the BPPE itself. The regulations may spell this process out, but I don't intend to read them, nor do I think it appropriate for us to interpret them, anyway.

I think the material is clearly important to the article, but I can't get past our policy. What would you like to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 August 2012


 * The document is a legal document, but the statements I added to the article are statements of fact by the BPPE, describing its past actions. Specifically, it says that BPPE denied the application and gives the date of denial (I didn't include the details about the submission of the application) and it gives the reasons for denial (a long list; I was selective in listing them). This is not an interpretation of legal arguments or a court decision. The portions of the document that I used could just as easily have been issued as a BPPE press release. This use is consistent with the Wikipedia policy that states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you downplay the amount of interpretation required. Putting aside which facts you chose, which is a form of interpretation, what troubles me the most is if the December 11 action was a true denial, what is the hearing for? If, OTOH, it was an initial denial that must be formally approved by the BPPE director, to some extent what we are saying in the article is misleading, if not affirmatively, at least by omission. If it were a less experienced editor who inserted the material, I would have reverted and asked you to justify the material on the article Talk page, but I chose this less confrontational route out of deference to your considerable experience generally and with this article in particular.


 * Unless you have a better idea, how about if I raise the issue at WP:RSN?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FTR, I didn't find this document in the recesses of the deep web. It is listed at the BPPE website on a page entitled "Disciplinary Actions". According to that page, a "Statement of Issues" is "Charges filed against an applicant to deny an approval to operate due to alleged violations of the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 and other applicable law." The statement was issued by BPPE describing the action that BPPE took and it is addressed not to the head of BPPE, but rather to the head of the Department of Consumer Affairs. I made no attempt to interpret the appeal/adjudication process that the document relates to, but rather I simply described what BPPE said it had decided. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, it is clear (because BPPE says so) that in December 2011 BPPE decided not to grant Preston's application. Without knowing the particulars of the approval/appeal process, it should be obvious that the BPPE or the Department of Consumer Affairs could change its mind and grant approval. Further, since there is no indication that Preston ever had approval in the past (indeed, since BPPE wasn't authorized until 2009 and didn't exist until 2010, the prior state approval process ended in 2007, and Preston moved to California circa 2009, it's almost impossible for it to have been approved earlier), the denial was simply a refusal to grant a request and not a revocation of anything. --Orlady (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the Statement of Issues was directed to the Director of DCA, not someone at BPPE, but that and your description of what the 2009 Act did reinforces my point that this is tricky stuff. At bottom, you are plucking a statement from a legal document in a process we don't fully understand and treating it as fact, even though it appears to be questionable based on the Prayer.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The content I added to the article does not get into the legalities of state approval of educational institutions of California or the convoluted history of BPPE and its predecessor agencies, nor does it attempt to sort out the legalities of the "Statement of Issues". It states that BPPE refused the application for approval. That's based on a pretty straightforward factual statement at the top of page 2 of the document cited. The source uses the word "denied"; I chose to substitute "refused", which means the same thing but seems softer. The article also does not include the detail that Preston applied as an "Institution Not Accredited"; that might be interesting, but its inclusion would require some interpretation of the categories of BPPE approval.
 * The document has a long list (on pages 9 to 11) of "Causes for Denial of Application", subtitled "(Incomplete Application)". The term "incomplete application" has regulatory relevance, but it's not particularly informative as a summary of the reasons. IMO, listing all of the reasons would be undue emphasis. Therefore, as you correctly point out, I selected items from the list. Some items on the list did not seem as consequential as others (e.g., "incorrect application form") and some seemed highly legalistic or technical, thus requiring interpretation that verges on original research. I selected the information about the "cease and desist" orders for several reasons, including that it helps connect this particular manifestation of Preston University with the institution described earlier in the article (and supports statements made earlier in the article about ceasing business in Wyoming and Alabama) and it seems more consequential than some other reasons given. The words "insufficient information about the institution's education programs and resources" were intended to encapsulate several other items on the list, including "instruction and degrees offered", "description of each educational program", "financial resources and statements", "faculty information", and "libraries and other learning resources". --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The word refused is not softer but (IMO) wrong. Refusing an application sounds like refusing to even process it. Although I understand your reasoning in the rest of your comments, I am not persuaded that we can include the material based on this source. Although not completely happy with saying anything, I have a compromise proposal:"According to a Statement of Issues filed on May 1, 2012, by the Deputy Bureau Chief of the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, Department of Consumer Affairs (Bureau), on December 9, 2011, the Bureau denied an Application for Approval to Operate as an Institution Not Accredited, which Preston University submitted in July 2010."
 * If that bureaucratese is all you think the article can state, I think it's time for a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard. I'll go copy this discussion there. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Orlady. I'll follow any comments made there.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Megan Rice

 * Hi Orlady -- Thanks for adding to the article on Megan Rice. I saw you clarified her age at becoming a nun at 18.  The thing is that I had originally had 18 (from the NYT article) but then found another source that listed at 17.  Do you have some method for choosing between those two sources?  Anyway, I flagged it on Talk:Megan Rice, so if you could respond there it would be helpful.  Cheers, --Lquilter (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The source that gave the age as 17 was an article in the University of Tennessee ("UT") student newspaper, which you mistakenly identified as a Utah newspaper. I verified the age as 18 from the transcript of Megan Rice's oral history interview. The relevant part of the oral history interview reads:
 * Now you spent most of your youth in Manhattan?
 * Yes, until I was seventeen.
 * OK, so you went to high school and—
 * Yes, near there. And grade school, too. Then I became a sister, actually when I was eighteen, because I was really very interested in Africa.
 * It seems to me that the subject's own statement, also reported in the New York Times, is sufficiently reliable that we can discount the student journalist. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cognitive vulnerability
I was crushed when my article was slammed. I updated the DYK page and finally took the courage to type down what is needed to be cleared up. Please check. Thanks. Khyati Gupta (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Miss, I replied to DYK page. Please see. Thanks Khyati Gupta (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I got rid of the OCD part. Please check the nomination page. Thank you. Khyati Gupta (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Orlady, as you presumably saw, I rewrote this article extensively without changing its organization, and someone else has now proposed a new hook. Could you take another look at it and see whether we can get it over the last hurdle for this new editor? (I'm now on my weekend and although the topic is one I know next to nothing about, that means I have a bit of time to do further writing tweaks, especially since I was able to find about half the sources online. And the editor herself seems to feel I haven't messed up the intended meaning.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Greg McMichael
Orlady (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK and stubs
Sorry about that I didn't know that a stub can't be a DYK. Personally I think thats a fairly stupid rule and it advocates the practice of people not assessing articles so they can get DYK but its not the first, nor will it be the last WP rule that didn't make sense to me. Its good to know though. Thanks for sharing. :-)Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The general idea is that any article that truly qualifies for DYK (at least 1500 characters of prose, reliable-source references for at least the hook fact, reference citations throughout, not plagiarized) shouldn't be considered a stub. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although your reasoning is sound, I'm sorry I just don't agree that unassessed is better than an assessment. Kumioko (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal rule. It's one of the long-standing community-established rules of WP:DYK. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry wasn't directed at you. I just think its silly to tell users that they can submit unassessed articles to DYK because they don't allow stubs. If they are going to not allow something it should be unassessed. No worries. Kumioko (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In practice, a lot of articles that get submitted to DYK are assessed as stubs. Often the assessment was added very soon after the article was started (for example, by an eager new page patroller who rated it within the first hour), and by the time the article is submitted at DYK (for example, the next day) it is vastly better than the version that was assessed. DYK reviewers are supposed to satisfy themselves that the article is past the stub stage, but there are automated tools that flag a problem if the article has been assessed as a stub. --Orlady (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

gift, v.
According to OED, "gift" as a verb is a chiefly Scottish usage in this sense; we shouldn't be using it elsewhere per WP:ENGVAR. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly to me, those grammarian websites I found listed a usage example in the Wall St Journal, and indicated that it's a standard term for lawyers. I dislike it, though. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard it often, by other than lawyers, but usually in a legal sense.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My new project - WWC
Hi Orlady! I hope all is well. I wanted to stop by to share a new project with you that I am developing, called the WikiWomen's Collaborative. I would love your input about the project. Thank you for the consideration and I hope you'll participate in developing this exciting new project to bring more women to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find the project page here.
 * On the talk page, you'll find a number of questions I'm seeking input on. I'm especially seeking thoughts about hosting the space off of Wikipedia (in the WordPress section). I hope you will join in on the conversation.
 * Finally, this project will be developed with volunteers from around the world who want to engage and support bringing new women to Wikipedia. If you think you'd like to be involved in some capacity, that'd be awesome. We're still working on developing roles, but, you can learn more about volunteer opportunities here.

Symbols of Francoism (2)
I have been plugging away at this one, off and on. See latest Symbols of Francoism, still a work in progress. The original was quite accurate although sometimes poorly worded, but a lot of the content had no sources. When I tracked down sources, I often rewrote to match them. And I shuffled the sequence and cut out stuff that seemed peripheral. So the current version is rather different from the translation submitted for DYK. I will keep plugging away and clear the remaining tags, maybe tomorrow. It is sort of interesting, although "for God and the country" does not really inspire me. I would rather sip wine and eat tapas. But should this be yanked from the DYK queue or flagged for re-review? I am inclined to let it through as the contributor's first article, but you choose. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed with your progress thus far. I am not especially anxious to reject this one from DYK. As you say, the article seems very solid. More significantly, the topic is important, interesting, and not one that has been overexposed at DYK -- and it hasn't been on the noms page nearly as long as Orgastic potency! --Orlady (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that opinion. I will put a "recheck" symbol in the nomination when I am a bit more comfortable with the shape of the article.  This is tougher than writing a new article from scratch, which is just a question of assembling accessible information.  But I feel some responsibility for originally checking it as "good to go", so will try to take it through to closure.  Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, I came here to leave a note on another old DYK nom, to find that Orgastic potency is happening here as well. Before I fully discharge on the other one, let me state quickly, Orlady, that I proposed a closure on the too-long delayed gratification of Wilhelm Reich's brainchild. Anyway, I like for you to have a quick look at Template:Did you know nominations/Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories and OK it: you've looked at all the sources, and it will pass, with your ALT, if you are convinced that it contains zero plagiarism--I have no desire to repeat the work you've done already. Life's too short. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like it made it through DYK, with a hint it should be pushed on to GA. I leave that to you, if you want.  Getting this far was painful enough.  Any topic can be interesting, but fascist symbolism is really not my thing.   :~)  Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Your willingness to say in the recent ANI discussion that you made an inadvertent mistake by participating in the Sons of Norway deletion discussion was well done. Also, your comment at the "dis"-Harmony talk page appeared to be even-handed, constructive and actually supportive of Doncram's position. (It may have even been an olive branch of sorts.) Unfortunately, Doncram still perceives your commenting on his activities as being driven by a malicious desire to harass and/or silence him. I assume good faith that Doncram's perception of your motive is incorrect. That said, having Doncram call you "evil," "poisonous," "sadistic," and "intellectually dishonest" (as you noted here) is undoubtedly hurtful and unlikely to engender a lot of good will. While the voluntary separation has been helpful, I realize that there's no obligation on your part to continue it. Whenever the separation ends, the interaction needs to be more civil. Given Doncram's perception of your intentions, that will be a struggle for him. Hopefully, when the time comes, you can take the higher round and eventually change Doncram's perception. (In re-reading this, I fear it might come across as condescending. It is absolutely not meant that way.) Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your patience and dedication with this situation. I also appreciate your sharing your perspective on Doncram's perceptions of me. In years past, I attempted communications with him with a goal of reaching some sort of rapprochement, but I did not get very far. I probably will never figure out why he first formed the mistaken notion that I was waging some sort a personal vendetta against him -- he apparently formed the opinion that I was out to get him before I had even noticed that I had interacted with him on multiple occasions. From long interaction (including observations of negative interactions with other users), I do think that he may need to be reminded not to personalize discussions of content -- in particular, not to misinterpret content criticisms as personal attacks. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

C. Oliver Iselin House
Are you sure that the C. Oliver Iselin House article should have been deleted? I know that I spent some time on that article. It wasn't then and isn't obvious now that the primary author actually did anything wrong with regard to the article. What appears to be deletion of everything the author touched seems to me to be a rather vindictive response from the Wikipedia powers that be. No, I don't know the author and am not defending the author in any way but I am defending the article.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. It hardly seems fair when a user's good work gets deleted. You did do some good work cleaning up the reference citations for that article and adding coordinates, but the history did not indicate any changes to the content, so I did not consider that your contributions were substantive. The creator of that article was one of the newer sockpuppets of a community-banned user whose hundreds of sockpuppets have added large amounts of content here and at Commons that has been found to be fake and/or to violate copyright (sometimes both!), in addition to other less consequential issues. Content created by banned users is subject to speedy deletion unless other users have made substantive contributions. That particular article about the Oliver Iselin House was substantially the same as an article entitled All View that had been created and edited by two other sockpuppets and was deleted last month. I am reasonably sure that the images used in the various versions of the article are also copyvios; they resemble various images that were deleted in the past for that reason, and they were uploaded to Commons by other Jvolkblum sockpuppets.
 * The article content may have merit, but if you want to restore it, you need to take responsibility for researching and validating all of the contents of the article. (Do not assume good faith by the author -- if you can't validate a fact, don't include it.) Be aware that in the past, this user has created articles that were copied from a source, but instead of citing the source, he has added citations to obscure books that often could not be checked by anyone else (even to verify that the book exists). If you are prepared to take full responsibility for verifying the content, I can email you the last version of that article. --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all of that. I'm primarily interested in the references because they do bear on the Columbia, Defender, and possibly on Sir Thomas Lipton and some of his Shamrock yachts. Got all that I need from the google cache of the article.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya,

I had a question also in reguards to Jvolkblum that includes Iselin. I was wondering if i could see the references used-- in the now deleted A. Georg Iselin article. I am doing some research on him and his investment company, and the references would be greatly helpful.... Thanks

—Abduke678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Like Trappist the monk, I bet you can find everything you need in the Google cache! --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Abduke678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses
I'm quite baffled by your suggestsion at DYK page. I've responded there, but if you have any extended discussion in mind, perhaps the best place for it is the article talk page itself. Savidan 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK/IBT
Sorry for the delay in responding; I assure you that your patience was not in vain. I revisited your feedback several times since we last communicated, but on every occasion I managed to get sidetracked either by researching the subject in greater depth or otherwise because of pressing off-wiki circumstances. I also had hoped to hear back from Dioxinfreak before removing or attempting to rewrite his contributions.

Regarding your concern over the use of "accident" as a descriptor and/or metaphor in the article, I'd like to first outline my understanding of the story according to a collective body of associated material. In chronological order:


 * 1) The FDA receives an inside tip from a whistleblower at Syntex that the company may have submitted falsified data
 * 2) Syntex's recent submissions are accordingly scrutinized by the FDA at random
 * 3) Gross' aide retrieves an IBT study conducted for Syntex, an event characterized by at least journalists as being an anomaly in the process
 * 4) Gross analyzes the study and notices that its results are unrealistic even for a control group, which prompts him to, among other things, demand raw data from IBT
 * 5) IBT's data for the study is so damning that it calls into question the validity of hundreds more

Now, anecdotally, I could've sworn that I saw Gross address this issue in a direct quote, but seeing as I've since been unable to confirm that to be the case, I'll assume for a moment that we wholly discount the notion that Syntex's contractors' studies were not at all being sought in connection with the investigation. Even so, there's still an undeniable element of unforeseeability in that IBT's much broader misconduct was discovered because one of its clients had been directly outed for comparably isolated wrongdoing—an accident of sorts, at least in the colloquial, non-technical sense.

With that said, I've gone ahead and reworded the text to reflect your concerns until I can figure out a better way to incorporate the aforementioned material. I greatly value our project's pursuit of veracity and intellectual honesty, and so I do thank you for your commentary. —  C M B J  08:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Clayton (Politician)
Interesting, wasn't it. But there's weirdness all over the place--did you follow the news from AL? Drmies (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's contagious. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dishonorable Disclosures
What's the status of this DYK nomination, please. Thanks.  Belch fire - TALK 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't own the review. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Stroke Belt
Hi Orlady,

Thank you for your time to take a look at the "Stroke Belt" phenomenon.

Unfortunately, your reasons to delete my comments are not valid. First, "Medical Hypotheses" has become a peer-reviewed journal for more than a year now. Hence, the manuscript I was referring you to underwent a rigorous peer-review process. I urge you to visit this journal's website and take a good look

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_01563 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovshani (talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC) "Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit. All reviewers will be fully aware of the Aims and Scope of the journal and will be judging the premise, originality and plausibility of the hypotheses submitted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovshani (talk • contribs) 18:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Second, I am not really sure what do you call "a self-promotion"? The causation section clearly refers to Glymour et al - do you also call this an example of self-promotion of Dr. Glymour?

I look forward to seeing your comments

Rovshani (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)rovshani
 * Medical Hypotheses appears to be a forum for discussion of exciting topics. I'm sure it makes for great reading, but it does not seem appropriate to cite it as medical science. Also, your citation was very incomplete. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit to United States fiscal cliff
The edit history says "edited so that the article no longer misrepresents CBO as having reviewed the subject focus of different discussions of the fiscal cliff".

I don't understand. The two paragraphs that you changed involved discussions or debates of the fiscal cliff, by Congress, newscasters, pundits or two guys having a beer. They had nothing to do with the CBO, except that its reports are one out of many reliable sources of the various provisions themselves, not that the CBO had reviewed the discussions. We do not know if the "two provisions of current law are the key elements of the fiscal cliff" but we can say that the two provisions are key to the discussions, at least so far.

Since CBO only occurs in a footnote, I can't see why a reader would be confused. Please explain here; I will be watching this page. (Or transfer this section to the article's talk page.) Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was concerned about two statements with footnotes that identified CBO as the source. The first of the statements said: "The following two provisions of current law are almost always included in any discussions of the fiscal cliff." The wording of that sentence indicates to me that the cited source provided some sort of review of discussions of the fiscal cliff, and identified these two topics as prevalent themes. In fact, however, the cited source is exactly one discussion of the fiscal cliff, and it does not provide any perspective on other discussions of the topic (indeed, it doesn't even include the term "fiscal cliff"). The statement about what is "almost always included in any discussions" is undoubtedly true, but regrettably it looks like original research. The same issue existed for the second statement ("In addition, some or all of the other provisions listed below may also be incorporated in the debate"), but it is less acute there because the assertion is less strong. IMO, if you want the article to identify the provisions of law that have created the fiscal cliff, the CBO reference is acceptable (even though it doesn't use the term "fiscal cliff"), but it is not an appropriate source for statements about "discussions of the fiscal cliff" or "the debate". Accordingly, I reworded the two statements to remove the suggestion that the source described discussions or debate.
 * I assume that someone other than Wikipedia (for example, National Journal, Columbia Journalism Review, On the Media, one of the national newspapers, a national news magazine, PBS, or NPR) has documented the discussion/debate on the fiscal cliff in a manner that would support these statements, but it's not the CBO. --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another way to get around the original research problem is to quote or paraphrase one or more specific identified authorities/pundits regarding the meaning of the "fiscal cliff". For example, this blog post might be helpful. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not done an in-depth search for sources for this content. However, this Christian Science Monitor piece may have possibilities. I found some good articles on the Wikipedia-blacklisted site moneymorning.com that looked useful  (particularly moneymorning.com/2012/06/19/what-is-the-fiscal-cliff/); I haven't yet investigated why it is blacklisted to see if we could justify a whitelisting for a specific link. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "cited source" was meant to reference the provisions listed below it, NOT the sentence in front of it. I know because I added the footnote at 01:53 on Aug 25. Where else would you place such a footnote? Other sources in the article's Reference section for provisions of current law that make up the fiscal cliff are:
 * Romans (CNN), What is the Fiscal Cliff?
 * Calmes (NYT), Recession Possible...
 * Page (CBO), Economic Effects of Reducing...
 * All of these (and probably more in the current References) mention explicitly "the fiscal cliff". You can substitute any or all of them for the current footnote. But I think it's important to indicate that the provisions are "key elements in any discussions (or debates) of the fiscal cliff", rather than simply "key elements of the fiscal cliff" itself. Why would "any discussions" be OR but "key elements" would not? If you take WP:NOR to extremes (as in What reliable source said that the provisions listed are "key"?), you are precluding any paraphrasing. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that you intended for the footnote to support the list and not your introductory statement, but the effect of the footnote placement was to indicate that the source supported both the introductory statement and the list. Because it was clear to me that the source did not in fact support the introductory statement, I edited the introductory statement so it would be consistent with the cited source. If you are determined to retain your introductory statement, you need to produce a source that supports it. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Herb Mitchell (actor)
I have fixed issues, so I wonder if I'm missing something else. --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan James Pantone
FYI, take a look at: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard


 * Thanks, once again, for your sage wisdom on an article.


 * I deleted the stuff about the photo controversy.

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the carbon cowboy stuff is important. You're a good wordsmith -- would you be willing to give a shot at adding it?


 * Pantone is an interesting case. Kudos to you for tracking him for so long! When I saw his name on the BLP noticeboard, I remembered him, but I forgot that I remembered him from an AFD (I was surprised to see that I had no previous edits on his article). I still feel like he's mostly a self-promoter, but he seems to have honorable intentions and he may have stepped into the middle of something much bigger than he is. As for working on the article, I may do so, but I am feeling like I am spending more time at Wikipedia than I can afford right now... --Orlady (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gary Harrison
Please use the for template when adding the "For X, see Y" text at the top of the page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Birch Creek Charcoal Kilns
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/United States fiscal cliff
Orlady, I notice that you've been working on this article a bit lately. Can you comment on its readiness, in response to my question on the template? It's been a week since your last comment there, rescuing it from the orange X. Thanks.

And, while i have you here, I posed a question about Template:Did you know nominations/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show: specifically, it previously had an AfD end in a deletion, and another AfD end in a merge, but the new article survived AfD. DYKcheck sees these earlier versions, and says it isn't a 5x expansion; indeed, the Plot sections (the bulk of the article) aren't all that different from the earliest versions. But does an actual deletion change the calculus here? What about a delete and merge? I really need an opinion from a more experience DYK person here, since the rules aren't as clear as they ought to be on this situation, but I'm sure it's come up before. Many, many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Electric Catfish 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Herb Mitchell (actor)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Domestic violence in Pakistan
Pumpkin Sky closed out the nom for DYK as rejected, he has reopened it now however. Do you think the article is now suitable to go ahead? Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

KW is off again, the nomination may as well be withdrawn he will not drop it. I had hoped to bring a serious issue to public attention, all I got in return was abuse. I shall not bother with further DYK's. Thank you for your help. Facts, not fiction (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not dropping it. Kiefer's disruptive behavior (including his harassment of you and his disruption of DYK) is unacceptable. If he continues, he'll be at WP:ANI very soon. The situation is a lot like domestic violence; if Wikipedia gives in to disruptive behavior, it will only continue -- and get worse. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you withdraw your improper remarks. Domestic violence, indeed. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you quit bullying Darkness Shines. I couldn't help but notice that bullying is, in general, remarkably similar to some forms of domestic violence, which is the subject of that article. --Orlady (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Control your behavior, first by owning up to it. You chose to compare my editing to domestic violence, and you chose to rationalize it with "I couldn't help but notice".
 * Was it bullying when I called attention to the, earlier. misrepresentation of this DYK?
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not comparing your "editing" to domestic violence. I am concerned with your disruptive interactions with other users, including Darkness Shines and multiple DYK participants (including me). When Wikipedia continues to tolerate disruption, the disruptors win -- much like the unpunished perpetrators of domestic violence. --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pancreatic injury
I was about to ping Anne, the original reviewer, when I noticed you had done a few edits to the article yesterday. Can the article be salvaged? (The original author didn't seem interested in addressing Anne's points.) Since you are working on it, I'll leave it in your far-more-capable hands. Thanks for taking it on! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Frontier Christian University
Found this when looking at Dave Canterbury - see. Could use an article or inclusion in the unaccredited list. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I added it to the list. Disturbing stuff; I don't guess that accreditation is needed for the training of "God's Generals". Thanks for the alert! --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hanajira
Hello, regarding your use of the tick symbol at Hanajira, was that meant to be construed as a review of the article as a whole or specifically in relation to the proposed hooks. You mentioned there was a problem w the verification of the statement made in the lead section of the article used as the alt2 hook, & the original hook which talks about the tribe as a whole being relocated to Gaza apparently should only be referring to some clans composing the tribe - some went to Jordan. My impression was that you didn't examine the entire article (no mention of date, length etc) & were directing you comments at the hooks only, in which case it would be advisable to reopen the discussion & allow the original review process to run its course. Bluemoon who closed the discussion doesn't seem to object, but as he's not an admin he can't undo his own action.—Biosketch (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied earlier at User talk:BlueMoonset. --Orlady (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He suggested I seek your input directly, which is why there's a more detailed comment here than there. Again, the question is whether or not you intended the scope of your tick to encompass the whole article or just the hooks. But either way, regarding the claim that the Hanajira were relocated to Gaza, that isn't a claim being made in the article at all, i.e. the hook doesn't reflect anything that's stated & sourced in the article. Do you see problem now? The article is significantly more nuanced than the hook: the second-largest of the four clans mentioned was split between two destinations but the hook makes it seem otherwise.—Biosketch (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied at BlueMoonset's page to say that I reviewed the whole article. The article is a bit confusing regarding the expulsion because it refers to the clans within the Hanajira rather than to the group as a whole, but the cited source supports the hook fact regarding expulsion to the Gaza Strip. --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look closely through that source you won't find anywhere that the author claims the Hanajira tribe was expelled to Gaza. There is a list of clans & the fate of each clan is recounted as its own tribe, w one of the two large clans having gotten split up between Gaza & Jordan. The claim the hook is making, in the manner it's making it, isn't made by the article & isn't made by the source. Unless you feel it's valid for there to be some measure of interpretive license on the part of dyk hooks.—Biosketch (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The hook does not need to be supported word-for-word by the source; indeed, if the article and hook repeat the words of a source, it's plagiarism/copyvio. The source states that three of the four clans were expelled to the Gaza Strip and that "most of" the fourth clan (the Nuseirat) was also sent there. The statement that "other" Nuseirat families went to Jordan does not affect the truth of the statement. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR
Just a friendly request to remember WP:CITEVAR — all the articles I create, including Duffy Site, are written in a reflist-friendly form of MLA Sixth Edition, which says that state names aren't appended to cities of publication. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
JanetteDoe (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Message
16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Preston U
I'm confused. The lede hatnote makes is clear (as you say) that the two are related. The SA does not (at least without some explanation which is now lacking). Perhaps something in the article text for PU,P can be added. --S. Rich (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a hatnote is to disambiguate a title, so that someone who is arriving at the wrong article can find their way to their intended destination. Hatnotes are not supposed to be used to explain relationships between topics.
 * I'm confused, too, but not by the hatnote. The real source of confusion is that the various users who show up to promote Preston continually change their stories regarding the relationship between the different incarnations of Preston. Sometimes they have treated them as a single institution, sometimes they say they are related, and sometimes they insist that the shared name is purely a coincidence because the schools are totally unrelated. The hatnote has been used when they insisted there was no relationship.
 * It's been hard to document a relationship (or lack thereof) between the campuses. However, I have found one source on HighBeam that pretty strongly verifies the relationship (there may be other sources, too), so I'll try to beef up the article. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These incarnations of "Preston" are actually a single institution doing business worldwide. There's been an unbelievable amount of deletion of content and sources over the years to disguise that. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As always you are superb. I reverted the one-person rag comment because I was in error, and was confident that you'd come along to set things really right. (But it would have been unseemly for me to revert my error, and then come up with some other reason.) And I thank you for the explanation on the hatnote.  FYI, recently I heard a Freakonomics episode about the value of degrees.  It featured an interview with the FBI agent who started up Operation Dipscam.--S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the rationale on keeping the access dates on the dead links. I would not have known. As for my latest edit, please accept what I've provided. From what is available (i.e., the cited material), the Director of Consumer Affairs has not issued a decision. We see that the BPPE has simply responded to PU's application. The Director makes the "almost" final decision. ("Almost" in that the courts might get involved.)--S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your edit. The document (by BPPE, aka "the Bureau") says (at the top of page 2) "The Bureau denied the application on December 9, 2011". That is about as straightforward as a statement can be. Apparently Preston appealed and/or the Director of Consumer Affairs is officially reconsidering the denial -- figuring out that situation requires original research, IMO. The sentence "In May 2012 the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE), issued a "statement of issues" where it asked that Preston University's "Application for Approval to Operate an Institution Not Accredited" be denied by the Director of the California Department of Consumer Affairs" fails to indicate that "statement of issues" is some sort of legal document (we don't know what, though) or that "Institution Not Accredited" is a category of BPPE-approved institution, and it doesn't parse as sensible English (due to the unquestioning inclusion of so many terms whose actual meaning/significance we can only guess at). Most significantly, it omits the simple fact that the application was denied in December 2011. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see that you strongly disagree. Given the fact that BPPE is responding to PU's application, it is clear (to me at least) that the State of California, through the Department, has not made a final determination. And because an appeal is available, there is no final determination as yet. (To suggest otherwise is OR.) With this in mind, some interpretation -- without getting too deep into the weeds -- is necessary to explain the "Prayer" and "request" to the Director that the denial of PU's application be reversed. (Such language, along with the whole format of the document, is purely legal in style.) In any event, please accept my explanation as one coming from an WP:EX. If we follow up on this story and see what shakes out, everything will be fine in the end. --S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There never will be a "final determination", IMO. Preston applied in 2010. BPPE denied their application in 2011. Preston could, at any time, submit a new application or new information that would lead to BPPE approving the school in the future. Additionally, this "statement of issues" document that we've seen appears to be related to some sort of review process that is currently ongoing within the state government and could lead to a different decision regarding their 2010 application. None of this convoluted speculation about what might possibly happen in the future changes the simple fact that their application was denied in 2011 and they are currently not approved. --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cluster headache article
I deleted the mention of the University College London in the lead because at quick glance it makes it look as if UCL changed its name to University of California, San Francisco. "Dr. Peter Goadsby, Professor of Clinical Neurology at University College London (now University of California, San Francisco), a leading researcher on the condition has commented" I know no one would actually think this but you can see what I mean. WHat's the best way to re-word this to show that he made the quote while in London but he now works in San Francisco? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.5.132 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the preposition "at" to both places in the article where his name appears. --Orlady (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Orlady. Thank you for your help in adding refs to the Anwar Bannud article. I appreciate it. Yazan (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

Paging Orlady - stat!
I stumbled across a real mess. Take a Chicago politician, Joseph Berrios, with a questionable reputation and an established editor with a strong point of view and you get a hard-hitting article, some of it sourced but some of it pretty POV in my opinion. Then stir in an IP with a COI trying to protect his (or his boss's) reputation and you get warnings and a block -- with nobody really looking at his edit summaries or thinking about our BLP policy or WP:BLPEDIT. I found this when I went to the wrong IP talk page today and saw the exchange:
 * User talk:68.250.73.249

I left a note at:
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

The IP had since shifted to another IP; I told him to stop editing and to join the noticeboard discussion
 * User talk:66.87.75.66

Another admin then blocked that IP.

I am concerned that the HiveMind's defense mechanisms are about to make a hash of a delicate issue. You're a tough but meticulously fair and precise editor -- can you take a look at this?

Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you sooo much for your work on this!


 * Also, FYI: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A fellow editor is attempting to engage you in concensus building at Talk:Joseph_Berrios. Hugh (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Might you have a few moments to answer some questions from a fellow editor at Talk:Joseph_Berrios? Hugh (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look later. I'm afraid I overlooked the previous request because it came in between other comments on this page. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John Angel (Sculptor)
Orlady, do I need to do three separate nominations, or would this suffice? I know I need to do a third QPQ, of course. Please pardon my ignorance. I just don't want to blow a time limit or fail due to a matter of form. I'm not asking for you to review the articles, as they can stand on their own merit. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's get the blogging party started!
Hi Orlady! Thank you for signing up to be a founding volunteer of the WikiWomen's Collaborative. I've started to draft ideas for blogs on meta, here! Feel free to chime in, and let's get this blogging party started! :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A small favor needed
Dear Orlady, I hope this finds you well. After a long time, I got some more information on Medical College for Women and Hospital and therefore tried to add them as far as I can. But you know I am not an English speaker and also not a very good wiki editor. So I shall be very grateful if you take a look at it and polish the recent changes further, just as you did while I first created this article. Shoovrow (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you do one more favor mam? I have taken two photos of the college myself. Can you set them for m, pls? Also, is the faculty and research section rationally presented, just an apprehension!!Shoovrow (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time yet to review the faculty and research section. I have added one of the photos to the article infobox (note that both of the photos appear to be the same). --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the photo job. Please do review the faculty and researches section when you get time. Shoovrow (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Orlady, I did my best to arrange the article including faculties and research section. But I shall be very grateful if you remain vigilant about this article's improvements and maintenance. Shoovrow (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my friend!Shoovrow (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Vulnerability
Talk:Vulnerability was left in a mess after the previous confusion. Can you recover the previous history for it ?--Penbat (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Orlady (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

role of rs in undue
may i get a bit personal here, thanks. myself I pride myself in knowing the rules & digging thru rs & spending time in content space. I probably read for several hours for every minute of editing. I don't like to spend as much time in talk space as lately. I think blp clean-up specialist is important to you and I don't want to take that or anything else away from you but i think perhaps invoking undue is an important part of that role and i think PERHAPS you may be unwilling to admit that your limited access to quality rs may limit your ability to invoke undue. but as you say blp is a big complex guideline and there are many ways an editor can contribute besides undue enforcement. in the future we will all have better access to quality rs. it is no reflection on you that some have better access to rs than you. yes, this disparity means that sometimes some editors may be better positioned to defend their pov in a weight dispute. you may need to dial back on the charges of undue at times. I think most/many editors do not immediately understand the full implications of the wp policy on the role of rs in undue, I know I did not at 1st and I know i was helped and I have helped others push thru since. Hugh (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea how negatively most people react to being condescended to?
 * do u? Hugh (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that, I do not happen to consider my inability to find the December 25, 1970, edition of the Chicago Tribune online to disqualify me from determining that there are problems with content you have included in Edward M. Burke. The issues with article are not related to the reliability of the sources, but rather with (1) decisions on what to include and (2) manner of presentation. I have endeavored to revise portions of that article to resolve issues with content that I was otherwise tempted to excise. I hoped to revise the discussion of Mr. Wisniewski's long-ago candidacy for alderman, but I could not do so because the article omitted salient facts and I did not find anything relevant in my web searches. Since you are the advocate for keeping this content in the article, the burden is on you to make it includable. And since you apparently have extensive access to 40-year-old sources on Chicago politics, I expect that you will have no problem filling in the "blanks" I identified on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * i understand from your reply that section blanking and rs deleting and making it someone else's problem is easier for you than the hard work of concensus building. all my mucking around in online databases is seriously effecting my productivity on wp, if I could just get over it i could be a real editor, who knaws, maybe even an admin, maybe even a blp clean-up specialist some day Hugh (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of those deletions was to unpublish (hopefully temporarily) content that I deemed to violate Wikipedia policy. This is not a content dispute, but rather a situation of needing to revise content to eliminate a potentially serious problem. Since you think that my judgement of that content was erroneous, I posted on WP:BLPN in hopes of getting additional perspectives on its acceptability. I do think, however, that the consensus of WP editors knowledgable about WP:BLP would be that (for one example) headings like "Attorney in Burke law firm convicted of ghost payrolling on Burke's Finance committee" do not belong in Wikipedia articles about living persons. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "filling in the "blanks" I identified on the article talk page" if you want to put something on my plate i must ask you to be more specific on exactly what must be done in your view. I have no idea what you mean by "blanks" you have changed your justification for massive section blanking and rs deletion so many times that i am left completely at a loss Hugh (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please go to the article talk page and search for the word "Wisniewski" to see my comments on the types of information that I said were needed to make that particular tidbit fit into the context of Burke's biography. I have significant real-life priorities right now; no point in squandering my time on repeating comments I already made. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "I do not happen to consider my inability to find the December 25, 1970, edition of the Chicago Tribune online to disqualify me from determining that there are problems with content" thank you for this comment, this is progress. you sincerely but unfortunately mistakenly believe rs is option in weight disputes, you know undue when you see it, u don't need no stinking rs Hugh (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you guys arguing? Here's my two cents:
 * These Chicago politician articles are hard. I've seen BLP disputes and usually they're pretty easy to sort out. Here you have a plethora of usually-reliable but sometimes biased journalistic sources. This is Chicago!
 * There's no reason access to a 1970 article has to be a barrier. Scan a copy and send it to Orlady.
 * I don't know all the details, but the Wikimedia Foundation now has access to a number of subscriptions to archival databases such as High Beam. Maybe this could be a tool.
 * This stuff is worth taking personally. We're just an encyclopaedia. Mostly harmless and often by design, dull (a byproduct of reliability and our 3 pillarsof NOR, V and NPOV). Dull is OK with me, especially when dealing with a topic as lively as Chicago politics!


 * You both have a lot to offer. Hugh, I've tangled with Orlady before -- she's tough. Really tough. But scrupulous and outstanding which is why I asked her into this. She's much more than a "BLP cleanup specialist", too. She's an editor's editor and has contributed a ton of major content here.
 * "tough. Really tough." i agree, tough to pin down. my eexperience is quick with the section blanking and rs deletion and generous with the broad brush invocations of policy and short on the hard work of concensus building thru citing specific content and specific guidelines Hugh (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm an admin-guy. You two are content guys (Orlady, you're an admin on paper but a content person at heart). Admins are important but people come to Wikipedia for content. You two are much more important to us.


 * Thanks to both of you for hanging in there with each other and with these articles. If you can stay with this, I think you'll both be glad you did. (Now I hope I'm not being too condescending).-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestions, A.B. FWIW, I've already searched HighBeam Research for information about Mr. Wisniewski, but I found nothing. HighBeam isn't nearly as useful as I had hoped it might be; among other shortcomings, it doesn't have much content from before the electronic text era. I have a hunch that the item in the Christmas-Day issue of the Chicago Tribune won't provide all of the basic facts of the interactions between Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Burke, but HughD likely can dig up the rest of the story. --Orlady (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * this is outrageous. after all the talk we get back to is he fabricating content Hugh (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Say what??? --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hugh, I don't think Orlady is saying you're fabricating content. I don't think anyone who's looked at this issue in the last week has thought you were making up facts. The issue is that we have to be able to provide reliable sources to prove our assertions of fact. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has questioned that your are editing in good faith, Hugh. With BLPs in particular, reliable sourcing is not optional, but rather mandatory: that's always been Orlady's point. (Also, I will admit, some of us older editors see the refusal to use capital letters, to spell our the word "you", etc., as an indication that the other party is not taking this project seriously.) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "that's always been Orlady's point" i disagree. this is not a fair characterization of the talk to date. one of my frustrations is that there has NOT been any one pt all along. other tacks include section blanking and rs deletion on the basis of a Pulitzer-prize winning newspaper being a tabloid. other tacks include section blanking and rs deletion on the basis of too much detail & too little. most recently, the tack has switched to justifying section blanking and rs deletion on the basis of "tone" Hugh (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hugh, the Sun-Times is a reliable source, as is the Tribune. The comments I made about "tabloids" were related to inclusion criteria, not reliability of sourcing. The standards for what to publish that are followed by tabloid journalism -- and, indeed, daily news outlets in general -- are very different from the encyclopedia's standards of inclusion. Not everything that gets reported in the Sun-Times, the Tribune, or any other news outlet deserves to be memorialized in Wikipedia. Additionally, Wikipedia needs to present information in broader/larger context than is normally needed in a local daily newspaper.
 * PS - Last time I looked at the article, I was OK with your recent additions. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Egg on face
I've been doing some subcatting today, mostly at the suggestion of what I thought was a new user account, User:LouisXXXII. I see that user has been blocked as part of a long history of socking. What signaled that this user was a sockpuppet of banned User:Jvolkblum? BusterD (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Impulse control disorder
This has been marked with an orange X by Crisco 1492 because some of the issues have not been addressed. I was about to reject the nomination, but given your past involvement, I wanted to give you a chance to weigh in first. (Mind, someone else might still come by and reject it; nothing I can do about that.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the orange X and shrugged. I'm not inclined to rescue it. The article is better than a lot of the psychological DYKs that have been submitted in recent months, but it has serious problems. I have no special knowledge of the subject matter and minimal resources to research it. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I just wanted to be sure you had seen it, and I'm glad you had the opportunity. As I thought might happen, it was rejected later that evening. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI on DYK
DYK RFC on My Talk page could use some enlightened ideas. It's beyond me. I understand if you don't want to get involved, but I'm letting you know. People are starting to get hurt, and somebody has to make an effort to get this wrapped up. Maile66 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Large Article Improval
Articles for deletion/Race, ethnicity, and religion in various censuses--I have now dramatically improved this article, which you nominated for deletion. Could you please tell me if my revisions to this article were good enough to keep this article right now? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Warren (California politician)
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, again
For reasons explained at Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California, I've opened a new RM request/discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills,_California. You're receiving this notice because you participated in the last one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK help
I just updated DYK queue 5 from prep area 3. Did I do everything rightly? If not, would you please fix it? I've never done this before. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just took this revision of the queue, since it was the most recent time that it had been filled, and copy/pasted content from the prep area that looked right. I didn't even look at the top and bottom of the page after I figured out what bits weren't in the prep area — I figured that if they worked when it was assembled last time, they'd work now.  Thanks for the pointers; I've updated the signature in the DYKbotdo template.  Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the tried and true "find some code that works and copy it" approach! For future reference, the standard approach for updating the DYK queue is even easier. Copy the entire prep area (just "select all" and copy) into the queue and stick a at the beginning of the page to tell the bot that it's OK to move to the main page (and to "sign" it as the administrator who OKed it). --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I feared finding that the bottom-of-the-page code was only appropriate for prep areas and would cause unexpected problems on a queue. And yes, that's the approach; it worked fine for me when I was creating those thousands of county navboxes.  Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative
Hi Orlady! I just wanted to let you know that the WikiWomen's Collaborative have launched! You can read all about it on this quick blog that I wrote! Do be sure to participate in the Facebook page and Twitter if you can, and suggest that your friends do as well. If you'd like to be a made an admin on Facebook, just let me know! Also, we've got our own blog channel now, so let's start getting those blogs rolling :) Happy to have you involved - let's do this! SarahStierch (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rose Kushner wiki entry
I had never seen the wikipedia entry about Rose Kushner. She was my mother. I'm interested in knowing if you knew her.

Thanks!

Gantt Kushner ganttmann@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganttmann (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I didn't know her, but I remembered her name as a well-known advocate for breast cancer patients. I created Rose Kushner after discovering that Wikipedia didn't have an article about her. I based the article on published sources. (As you probably are aware, personal knowledge is not a valid basis for a Wikipedia article.) --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Bamburgh Sword
Orlady, what are the rules about a 5x expansion: I know it has to exceed the size of the article right before the expansion begins, but is it over the most recently stable version of the article (that is, where it was before expansion began), or over the largest historic stable version? DYKcheck assumes steady growth, but that means it picks up versions before someone cuts chunks out, whether appropriately or not.

It turns out there are people with different interpretations (including myself); what's the actual metric with regard to supplemental A4? DYKcheck seems to go with the largest version it can find, but that seems unreasonable when it could have been a quickly reverted addition, possible of large size. Please weigh in at the Bamburgh Sword nomination above. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. Very much appreciated, and good to know. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)