User talk:Orlady/Archive 7

Shadow Hare
Greetings, Orlady. I understand you're a DYK guru, so I thought I'd come to you for advice. I just created a new article on a colorful character who calls himself Shadow Hare. I'd love to see this on DYK. In your opinion, is this likely? What should I do to the article to prepare it? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Late update) Thanks for your help! I can't wait to see it on the blue. – Quadell (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cities and all of that stuff
Sorry, you're right, I've been delinquent in reply. You are also right that I should have discussed these things beforehand. My reason for "city" to "settlement" is because the lists are not of cites, but of cites, towns, and CDPs, which are distinctly different institutions in U.S. law. I figured (based on Infobox Settlement) that "settlement" was a wikipedically acceptable name for all three.

As for the format of the Washington page, I'm not sure why you think it doesn't make sense (since it can be reorganized pretty much however anyone likes, and more ways to sort it can easily be added), but the reason I chose this format is because it is the format of several lists of cities, towns, and CDPs in the United States, and seemed to me the most useful in List of cities in Washington, List of towns in Washington, and List of census-designated places in Washington. So I was simply conforming the nickname page to the style of these somewhat similar pages.

In addition, I have added the much-needed sources to List of undesignated communities in Washington. Sorry, I hope I have made my actions clear, if not acceptable, to you. — The Man in Question (gesprec)  ·  (forðung)  02:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. It's not just a matter of making your actions clear and/or acceptable to me, as neither one of us owns these articles. This is particularly so when dealing with an article like List of city nicknames in the United States that has dozens of contributors make thousands of edits over several years. If you have ideas about renaming that article and the other articles that have been split off from it, please bring them to Talk:List of city nicknames in the United States for discussion.


 * Similarly, it would be best to continue discussion of other topics on the talk pages for the specific articles, such as Talk:List of settlement nicknames in Washington and Talk:List of undesignated communities in Washington.


 * I guess that your comment about "format of the Washington page" is in reference to the heading on my April 7th comment on Talk:List of settlement nicknames in Washington. The "format" issue there has to do with listing cities in alphabetical order by their nicknames instead of listing them in order by their actual names, which is the approach used everywhere else. Note that there are more serious issues with that list, though, including the absence of sources and the trivial nature of many of the nicknames.


 * See you at the article talk pages. --Orlady (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Update needed
An update's due from queue 5. I can do credits. Shubinator (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like BorgQueen got it. Shubinator (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Preston University
Orlady, I've been making some enhancements to the Preston University article primarily in response to someone that seems likely to be associated with the school somehow. He/she has been very good to work with but recently they added some info that I feel is probably in violation of WP:SELFPUB in that it seems unduly self serving to me. I was just hoping to get another pair of eyes and opinion before I reverted it. If you have the time I would appreciate it. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Speedy Deletion
The reason i requested the articles for speedy deletion was because i don't think they meet the Wikipedia standards when i created them i was new to Wikipedia so i was just trying to avoid a future debate.  Cheers  Kyle1278 15:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kids helping Kids
The Kids Helping Kids article has been altered to promote the present owner - Pathway Family Center. I wont go into the matter due to my POV view of the matter and because they have warned me that they will create false rumors like their other critics. So the article will need an author they cannot find dirt on or it should be deleted Covergaard (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jerry Bergman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jerry Bergman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK stuff
Could you clear queue 1? It wasn't reset after the last update. Also, it would be great if you could look at next and next next and bump them to queues 6 and 1 if they're good. Shubinator (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This would seem to be the book cited. Shubinator (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've got one more request. There are a few temporarily uploaded Commons images that should be deleted from English Wikipedia. Could you delete them? From DYK: 1, 2, 3, 4. From OTD: 5. From TFA: 6. Shubinator (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! By the way, the conversation on WT:DYK reminds me of this at your RfA :P Shubinator (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. I am bewildered by the intricacies of intellectual property for images, so I figure it's better to ask than to make mistakes. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, copyrights, trademarks, and patents are very confusing. Hopefully someone will stop by with a definitive answer. Shubinator (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ismail Shammout
Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your performance as an admin
Dear Orlady, I didn't voted on the positive side of your RFA. Anonymous Dissident passed your RFA. After you attained adminship, I've analyzed your performance as an admin. Your work as an admin has been positive. Today, if your RFA were running, I would have voted on the positive side of your RFA. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

An admin note
I'd like to direct your attention to User talk:Marine 69-71, as you have dealt with this individual as well, and may feel the need to take action as an administrator. I've got no real idea what to look for regarding sockpuppetry or checkuser, and I thought you would have some more expertise in this area.  bahamut0013  words deeds   11:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. I'll leave the next course of action up to you and your judgement.  bahamut0013  words deeds   14:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Canaiolo hook
Your change to hook actually made it inaccurate. The hook refers to Canaiolo inclusion in the first "modern" recipe invented in the 19th century-hence the past tense. The hook is now worded to make it seem like it is still used in that fashion today when in fact it is somewhat rare now that Merlot is permitted and does the same thing. AgneCheese/Wine 06:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you to both for watching Next Update closely, and acting on errors reported at WP:ERRORS as well. Shubinator (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Any reactions to this barnstar? :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Orlady. From June 2009, I will become busy in RL. I wanted to give barnstars to fellow editors this month. The lower-visibility work of vetting other contributors' DYK suggestions at TT:DYK is very important. That’s why I chose you and JamieS93. I like to work on articles or fight vandalism rather than socialize. But, sometimes it is important to recognize the praiseworthy work of fellow editors. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

who/whom
You are right about who/whom for the current DYK but it is up incorrectly on the main page at the mo. Not sure how it gets fixed...! Bigger digger (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it by purging the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, I would have been on the "whom" side of that debate. Is it not "Time magazine called him...", and therefore whom? No? Bugger. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting my oversight, Shubinator! Usually when I edit a main page item, it gets purged before I have a chance to hit the link. As for "who" vs. "whom" -- for the direct object (accusative) case, it's "who" or "him," but for the indirect object (dative) case it's "whom" or "him." --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see. "The form who is replacing whom in objective case contexts." Oh well, I'm sure there's an encyclopaedia that needs improving somewhere around here. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The English language has many pitfalls. :-( --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes it more exciting...! Bigger digger (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of University of Atlanta
An editor has nominated University of Atlanta, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/University of Atlanta
We advised the guy making the legal threat to retract it. That's what he's trying to do by striking out that one paragraph, which you reverted. I think the strikeout should remain, to acknowledge an apparent good-faith attempt to right a wrong that could have got him a permanent block. Of course, if the sockpuppetry case turns out positive, he might get indef'd anyway. But that's another story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, whatever. I reverted my revert. --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK
Hi Orlady! Thank you for your message. I am sorry if I made a rash decision and did something against the DYK's conventions; it was not my intention to do so. I did not see the discussion at the DYK page (looked at the article's talk to see if there had been a discussion and there wasn't one), and will comment there (again, thanks for letting me know). —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wears Valley, Tennessee
Regarding the page move warring from Radiojon that you experienced in February, the user's continuing disruptive page move behavior is currently under discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Please comment. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/4
... that in an annual festival in Koovagam, India, eunuchs and transvestites ritually marry the Hindu god Aravan (pictured)?

Please add the word Hindu. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Land Law
Hi,

Thanks a lot for helping me build the article. Do you think the two tags places at the article should stay? User:Gatoclass's neutrality concerns should be satisfied with your addition of the Al-Jazeera source and there seems to be a consensus (you, User:Jaakobou, and myself) opposing the merger proposal that has received no support. I would be bold and remove the tags myself, but I've removed them already and don't want to be accused of edit-warring. What do you suggest?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Orlady! Apparently User:Paxse felt that it was right to simply remove the article from the discussion page, after posting a short rationale. There was no consensus to remove the discussion. I have restored the entire section, so let's please continue where we left off and hopefully promote the article with whatever hook is acceptable by the general community. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hook promoted
I did read your comment at the discussion, in response to that I quote you from the HRW report, page 340: the PA announced in early May that it would seek the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of selling land to Jews. So the hook is fully supported. As I am opposed to your proposed alt, and we had already reached an agreement on the prior hook with the exception of linking the word "statehood", a minor issue which I have now conceded on, I have promoted that hook. If you have a strong objection to the promoted hook, or you feel my reasoning is flawed, you are entitled to remove the hook and restore the discussion, but I hope you won't do so as I think there has been more than enough wrangling over this article already. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On re-reading your comment, I see I slightly misunderstood your argument. Yes, you are quite correct to say that the PA imposes the death sentence, so to say it only "seeks the death sentence" is somewhat misleading. I have altered the hook slightly so that it says "seeks the death penalty". The PA imposes the sentence, but it cannot apply the penalty without the agreement of the PA's president Mahmoud Abbas, from whom it has to seek approval. Hopefully that clarifies the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That change does not address my concern at all. I've put the hook and the entire longwinded discussion back on the suggestions page. Unfortunately, it's 1 a.m. here and I need to head to bed right now. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, here we go again. Thanks for the response. Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta
Hi, your favorite article got split in two. I restored the page and it was reversed so I moved the material back in but you may want to take a look and make sure I didn't leave anything out. If you decide to revert back to the prior version from a few days ago and erase my correction that's fine with me, I won't be offended. Drawn Some (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I went ahead and put it back to the May 14 version because I see that Dirk Beetstra deleted referenced information when he split it. So my last version is the May 14 version. Drawn Some (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam


FlyingToaster Barnstar Hello Orlady! Thank you so much for your support in my  recent RfA , which passed with a tally of 126 / 32 / 5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust.  Flying Toaster 

Queue bump
Can you increment the next queue counter? Should be 3. The bot's confused thoroughly. I just assembled a set in Next also. Shubinator (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Steamers
Hi Orlady. I'm interested in your suggestions for sorting out the steamed clams article. I agree it's a bit lumpy. The basic story is that "steamers" refers, in the United States, to a particular type of clam that is so-named because of how they are often prepared. Perhaps it would be best to merge this with the proper name of that species? Or to do a separate article on that clam type and how got its name vis a vis how it's typically cooked? What do you think? I think Drmies mistakenly chose the articles he did based on recent DYK awards without realizing some were for noms or substantial contributions, rather than for being the creator and main contributor. I accept his explanation that it was just an oversight. I think most of Kelapstick's article creation work has been in the area of mining.

I look forward to your response on the clam article if you have any suggestions. And for what it's worth, I have found Kelapstick to be an exceptionally good natured and helpful editor who has a level of patience (he's Canadian after all) and an attention to detail that makes me confident in his suitability to be an Admin. I have tried many times to fluster him and involve him in some of my petty dramas, but I have yet to succeed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your welcome
Orlady, I sincerely appreciate your welcoming spirit and helpful guidance to a wiki newbie. Happy editing and of course no hard feelings. Knowledge sets us free. Fanfactious (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2009

Thanks for coming out
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at  (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

re your edit at Palestinian Land Laws
Can you be so kind and explain at the article's talkpage which part of the sentence is "disputed". Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. In my interactions with fellow Wikipedians I have picked up that when an fellow editor goes out of his or her way to compliment another editor via a barnstar, a "thankyou" is returned. It's just common decency. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

George Jones Memorial Baptist Church
Just now, as I was thinking of our discussion earlier today, I wondered if I should have removed the disputed from the article. I interpreted it as a reference to the ORNL, which I fixed: was this correct? If so, please leave a note on my talk page; if not, please restore it and accept my apology. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving a note and a message on the talk page together! Just wanted to note: the NRIS is not a reliable source for the municipal status of a precise locality — many sites are listed as being in a nearby community.  Morgan County is a good example, as both of its sites are listed in Rugby, which obviously isn't a municipality; also consider the Fraterville monument, which was listed in Lake City.  Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, you need not warn me that sites require IE; I don't use any other browser :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep piling on comments, but could you update some of the links on the talk page? All of the newsbank URLs give nothing except advertisements.  Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for directions on finding the articles; I'm going to post links to the "printer-friendly" versions of the texts (for example, Wheat — Education, sacrifice and proud memories) on the talk pages, and I'll use those links for references as soon as I use them. Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that it would work, because when I copy/pasted the link into a new tab, it opened fine; perhaps my browser only remembered it. I think I'm going to cite these stories as I would a printed source, using MLA standards for something accessible via a search page.  Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought when I first posted the links... I agree with your decision on how to cite them. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For a link to the stories, I posted the URL of the advanced search page. Would you please check the URL that I've posted to see if it works or if it's like the "permanent" link that I gave you a little while ago?  Nyttend (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Autobio
Please remove that autobio user page. The user is not an editor of this encyclopedia, and WP:NOT Myspace. This is a PR disaster waiting to happen. Consider deleting it as CSD11, or CSD IAR, but definetly blank it. Consider the cost-benefit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review/National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York/archive1
Thanks for your comments here. Work on this has slipped to the back burner lately (mostly more thinking than I feel capable of after work lately). But, I just wanted to assure you your attention to it was not wasted. I will get back to it. Lvklock (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Southport Historic District (Fairfield, Connecticut)
From my experience, anything on the National Register of Historic Places is deemed sufficiently notable for its own article. There's a Wikiproject group and everything. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please unprotect this district and, if you believe that it deserves protection, ask for an outside admin to protect it? It's a rather clear conflict of interest to protect it after engaging in the dispute/discussion.  Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The protection expired 3 days ago, AFAICT. I protected it for only 12 hours to cool off the edit war. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That it did; I'm sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Farmington Canal
I take it that you didn't see my last comment on Polaron's talk page — I was reading the NRIS location description wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no complaint about your comment. Thanks for the followup, however.  Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Easy-Way Store
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Easy-Way Store, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I see you have put it under construction. One key question that needs to be addressed: There are over 676 grocers (per google) in the Memphis area. Why is Easy Way notable? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CT NRHP HDs
Hi Orlady. I appreciate your involvement so far in the discussions at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut. I've just posted an RFC discussion there. I wonder if you would be willing, if it is consistent with your role, to police Polaron's edits a bit and to enjoin him to stop with redirects and new HD and new neighborhood articles, until a community consensus decision is reached. I believe it is obvious he has accelerated his actions in order to confound and go around discussion which I already tried to open, and to make it more difficult for the community to take a different consensus decision than his personal preference. I believe it is just causing more work for later, in deleting numerous redirects and articles later, and in revising numerous articles later, and in checking and fixing wikilinks elsewhere. I will also ask User:Nyttend, the one other administrator who has familiarity with the discussion, to consider this same request. doncram (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now Polaron is going through my edit contributions reverting, using Twinkle. Isn't that pretty much the same as using Rollback, taboo in a dispute?  I'll also post at Nyttend's. doncram (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly i am having trouble with what to say about Polaron. I don't want to be personal, but I am seriously dumbfounded by his insistence on incorrect and/or unsourced arguments.  I do understand, generally, that personal statements don't work in discussions, but his actions are certainly frustrating to me.  I make efforts to say he is either unaware of something or otherwise chooses to ignore, to avoid attributing too negative stuff about him.  What should i say differently about him, in any one circumstance?  I would welcome more specific feedback.


 * About what i am trying to foster, I am trying to create a decent situation for new NRHP editors, nation-wide. Hence, I have worked for a year to develop NRHP list-tables nation-wide, after working last year on NHL articles.  In CT, I fear that it is now an awful situation, with an active negative committed-to-fighting editor.  If NRHP HD articles get developed in CT in this process, that is fine by me, but I don't want to create stub articles and take that away from new editors, for no reason.  It now seems perhaps best to stub all the HD articles to establish they can be articles, or perhaps best to establish the right of anyone to create an HD article, then leave it as a redlink.  I am not sure what is best for wikpedia editors, as I have not encountered anyone just like Polaron before.


 * About Hazardville Historic District, and a number of others that i set to redirect to NRHP lists or to a new dead-end link, wp:bad redirs, I was just collecting those and was going to request assistance in deleting all the redirects. I am not an administrator so I cannot just delete them.  In the middle of the night, working, I thought i could assemble those as a group, but then Polaron shows up to delete what i had in progress.


 * I was in fact finding that a good number of Hartford County HD bluelinks were merely redirects to town articles that had not been edited yet. I judge that the correct thing to do is to delete the redirect, rather than create a stub, pretty crummy HD (unless necessary to establish that the HD article will be allowed).  Then there is no issue for me:  I would prefer a redlink allowing an editor to create the NRHP HD, and I believe it is inappropriate to link to a town article about a town that may or may not highly overlap.  In the Hazardville case in particular, i think i stripped out the NRHP junk out of the Hazardville article, and then could have created a stub for Hazardville Historic District instead.  But, honestly, why bother?  It is better to have no article that a crummy stub (again unless necessary to establish the validity of the topic for another editor, or for another reason like to address an NRIS info issue, or to be the one stub supporting a helpful disambiguation page, or some other reason).  So I was putting that in the group of bad redirects, to be deleted.  I was going to request Nyttend to make those deletions, as he has shown some willingness to review Polaron's edits and make judgments to delete them.


 * I thought that Polaron was backing down, given a few explicit responses at the CT Talk page and given a number of edits of his in HD articles that i resplit out, effectively accepting my judgments on them. You won't have had those watchlisted, so you would not have noticed them.  I guess i was wrong that he was backing down, given his latest round of warring, yes in response to my pushing now on the Hartford HD ones.


 * About Twinkle, I do mean that as a question: is it allowed for an editor to use automated tools to fight in a content dispute?  I myself used Rollback just once, and asked about it immediately. doncram (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Marion
Just curious if you've seen the Marion history — Polaron is claiming against cited, published, reliable sources that Marion is in both counties, and thus identical. When an editor repeatedly removes references for something such as this, when there's no possibility that the reference is for something irrelevant or problematic and thus should not be included in an article, it is clearly vandalism, for repeatedly making claims against all sources compromises the integrity of Wikipedia, and doing it intentionally is deliberate — in other words, it is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and doing more than three reverts to remove the same is not covered by 3RR. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I blocked for 3RR on the article Marion (Southington), which I then deleted because it was not a plausible search, given the other articles covering it.
 * Edit history was this:
 * 1)  (diff) 10:03, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (278 bytes) (rm)
 * 2) (diff) 09:56, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (3,099 bytes) (Only source on article for the community itself says just one, which is clear from a map, so obviously just one)
 * 3) (diff) 09:51, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (USGS tells you a point location -- look at a map)
 * 4) (diff) 09:50, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (3,099 bytes) (Source for this, please? USGS is more reliable than anything else for US geography in nearly all cases)
 * 5) (diff) 09:49, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (the center is in southington but the neighborhood does creep across into cheshire)
 * 6) (diff) 09:48, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (3,099 bytes) (This is a village and that is a historic district; HD is in NH County, but this isn't)
 * 7) (diff) 09:37, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (huh?)
 * 8) (diff) 09:31, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (3,052 bytes) (Not according to the source)
 * 9) (diff) 09:29, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (to have a unified article -- they are for practical purposes the samw)
 * 10) (diff) 09:29, June 23, 2009 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs | block) (2,874 bytes) (Why redirect the village article to the district? They're not the same)
 * 11) (diff) 09:26, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes) (←Redirected page to Marion Historic District (Connecticut))
 * 12) (diff) 06:27, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (3,799 bytes) (better this way)
 * 13) (diff) 06:25, June 23, 2009 . . Polaron (talk | contribs | block) (3,623 bytes) (Reverted to revision 298063429 by Polaron. (TW))
 * 14) (diff) 04:42, June 23, 2009 . . Doncram (talk | contribs | block) (2,903 bytes) (drop one more inappropriate NRHP template. revise about Marion Historic District, which by definition of neighborhood here, definitely extends outside this neighborhood)
 * 15) (diff) 04:24, June 23, 2009 . . Doncram (talk | contribs | block) (2,787 bytes) (remove NRHP infobox, which belongs in article about Marion Historic District, now linked instead. This article is, otherwise, entirely unsourced!)
 * - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome
Hey Orlady! Thank you for welcoming me to the community. I am very new to this whole wiki editing, so I appreciate you helping me along the way with my edits, pages etc. I've been wanting to get into editing Wikipedia for awhile now, to give something back to the community, as I use Wikipedia, and consider it a very valuable resource. Thank you for the links, I'll give them a read, I'm sure my editing and posting will need some practice to get better :)

I am in the process of getting more information for both the Scott Municipal Airport and Big South Fork pages, including more sources and neutral information. I recently visited my uncle out there, and like I mentioned earlier, have been looking to get into Wiki editing, and thought these would be two good places to start. Especially learning how to make new pages and posting information in a neutral voice. I appreciate the guidance, and will work to improve these pages to have better notability and more sources. If you have any other words of advice I would be happy to listen. I hope this is the proper way to respond to your post, these talk pages are a little confusing!

Strife007 (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilton Center
Hi. Doncram seems to be preventing the addition of material to the NRHP stub for Wilton Center Historic District that is not sourced to an NRHP document. I don't want to get into an edit war so I'll leave it alone for now but it seems to me that if editors are not allowed to edit these stubs, there's no point in splitting them out. In any case, your interpretation on the applicability of the town historic district commission source would be welcome. --Polaron | Talk 16:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

orderly discussion of RFDs
I don't understand what your recent edits are accomplishing. You could add a "standard" RFD template to the individual redirects, or you could amend the template which I had added in each case, but stripping out the template I added removes the category which identified each one for coverage in the set of RFDs.

Also I don't understand the utility of breaking out the RFD discussion for 10 Tolland county ones into 10 separate RFDs. (Fine about splitting the two New York ones.)

Proceeding like this, if you mean to imply that each RFD has to be individually nominated and discusssed, appears to be increasing, hugely, the cost of deleting 300 or so redirects in Connecticut.

Anyhow, there is a discussion section for how to process the RFDs, within the RFC in process. Do you mean to argue there for Option E ( i think it is ) that 300 separate RFDs are needed? doncram (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussed on Doncram's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

HDs by state
I've added the state-level category to all Ohio HDs. Alaska, too, is done, simply because there are so few HDs there. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And North Dakota. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've virtually never nominated something for speedy renaming, so I didn't know how it worked. Thanks for the attention :-)  By the way, working through states as I did isn't too slow (I worked through all the list articles and clicked all the HD lines that had blue links), and I was able to get plenty of cleanup done in the process.  I find it amazing how few NRHP articles have county categories... Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Law firm articles
Thanks for your interest in the article flags I have been adding to various law firm articles. I have labeled a number of them and intend to review more. I had not come across law firm articles before I recently read a blog post from a law firm marketer advising firms to create wikipedia pages for marketing purposes. I was surprised to see how many there are. Virtually all of them read like a law firm brochure, thus the advert flags. Most have peacock terms, such as largest, leading, wide range of services, successful, gained a reputation, famous, one of the seven sisters (which refers to them as elite), has over, etc (taken from articles you have removed peacock flag from). If there was a need to refer to a law firm in an encylopedia, they would not have this sort of tone at all. They are virtually all just a basic law firm web page. Anyway, I thought I would drop you a note, acknowledge that I am annoyed at this sort of use of wikipedia for what seems to me to be blatant marketing, and thank you for your input. See this discussion for a link to the blog that I mention. Cheers -- KenWalker | Talk 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we share the same concerns although I consider peacock terms generally inappropriate even when they are sourced. If they aren't sourced, they should be gone of course, but just because some law journal or lawyers newspaper refers to a firm as leading, etc, does not in my view make it appropriate regardless of how reliable the source may be.  There is an exception for quotes, but sourcing does not mean peacock terms should stay.  There are limits of course.  I wouldn't take the King of Pop off of Michael Jackson's article but most of these, such as the 7th largest law firm in the tort field in the mid west states are just firm marketers trying to get the most they can out of their market. I really wonder what the point of saying a firm is the 17th largest firm in the US is beyond marketing, even when there is a source for it.  The largest, or maybe the first few, but the rest are only important to the firm itself I think.  There is lots to do in these articles.  -- KenWalker | Talk 16:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for invite
Hi Orlady,

Thanks for the invite to WikiProject Appalachia. I've added my name, although I haven't been nearly as active on WP as I used to be. --Allen (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming, Rhode Island
I disagree with your approach to starting a new article about Wyoming, Rhode Island by moving an NRHP stub article about Wyoming Village Historic District to the village name. Fine for you to start a separate article, but as has been shown repeatedly, it is doubtful based on just the naming that the NRHP HD will be the same. In your own edit summaries and/or Talk page comments you comment that they will be different.

I restarted the NRHP HD article, and have added some material, including establishing its area and that it is located in two towns (not sure if the village is in two towns or not). However, Polaron seems emboldened by your edit and has so far at least twice replaced the developing NRHP HD page by redirects. It is unsourced and probably false that the HD is the same as the village. I opened an RFC specifically on the question of whether an editor should be allowed to edit war to destroy a legitimate topic NRHP article, in absence of sources and facts. I would appreciate if you would quell the editing by Polaron that is going against that, and take care in your own edits as well. Please look at the patterns here and the specific RFC discussion. doncram (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What happens when neither of us can change the others mind?
Do you automatically "win" because you're an administrator and I'm not? I seldom get involved in discussions such as these for long, because they make my stomach hurt, but I so strongly believe that I'm right in this instance that I can't let it go. I do truly find it amusing that we read the same words and each think they support our "side". You know, I truly think that you and I would enjoy sitting down for a cup of coffee or a beer. If you're ever in the Syracuse area, let me know. Lvklock (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...so, when e can't change each others minds, we wait for some other editor (Polaron) to come along and then hop on his bandwagon of merges for which there is no consensus? Lvklock (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. BTW, I added contrib prop info to the Peace Dale Historic District stub.  Funny thing, while I was doing it I noticed the Hazard Memorial/Peace Dale Library, and thought it was interesting that we also have a Hazard Branch library in Syracuse.  I was interested to read in the Peace Dale article the connection of the Hazards there to the Hazards here.  Indeed, the Hazard branch here is very nearly in Solvay (where my Dad worked at Solvay Process when I was a kid).  Small world. Lvklock (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When you mentioned Meigs, the only one that popped into my mind was Cornelia Meigs, childrens author....I've had a book by her all my life. And there she was on the list. Never knew she was part of such an illustrious family. Lvklock (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Tennessee
Hey there. The photo of John Sevier on Portal:Tennessee is incredibly large on my browser (Firefox 3). Tried fixing the photo myself, but it doesn't seem to work. It may all be in vain because the biography of James Knox Polk comes up on Internet Explorer, so maybe the biographies display at random? --Ichabod (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bethel Historic District (Bethel, Missouri)
Thanks for the heads up. I did some work on the article and responded at the merger discussion. Lvklock (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vermont villages
First off — I'm not complaining :-) Given the existence of incorporated villages in Vermont, I'm unsure that it's a good idea to continue to use the term with communities that aren't incorporated by themselves.  Here in Ohio it's quite common for unincorporated communities such as East Liberty and Logansville to be called villages, but we don't use that term with them because they aren't incorporated.  Surely one hears of unincorporated communities in Tennessee being called towns?  I am aware, to be sure, that Vermont law speaks of incorporated and unincorporated communities as both being villages: see Title 24, Chapter 39, §01301 of the Vermont Statutes, so I'm not objecting to covering unincorporated ones at Village.  Nevertheless, because of the possibility of ambiguity (i.e. sounding as if we're saying that an unincorporated community is incorporated) and because we don't have time to go into the legal details at the typical community article, I think it best if we don't use the term "village" by itself. In my mind, the best format would be to use unincorporated community, with unincorporated village being a secondary preference. What do you think? Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd not thought of including incorporation status in incorporated communities as well: given the ambiguous nature of "village" in Vermont, I think that this is better than anything that I suggested. Thanks :-)  Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Architecture in districts
By the way, except for areas that were all built at once, I've always thought a specific year category for a district is rather unusual and a bit hard to support. You'll virtually never wonder whether an edit like this is needed if you look at an HD article that I write. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to HDs nationwide
What do you think of filing a bot request to help with Category:Historic districts in the United States? I'm thinking of asking for a bot to add the category itself to all articles with "hd" or "nhld" in the "type" line of the infobox, as long as those articles weren't already in a state-level category. Once this was complete, we'd be able to remove the category from the table without running the risk of missing any, and an edit to add the state-level category to each site could easily include removing the national category. It should be easy: far easier than trying to keep track of which states or letters had been sorted into state-level categories. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've filed the request, taking care to specify that we don't need to have the nationwide category added to any articles already in a subcategory of the nationwide category. Thanks for your opinion!  Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

what process do u suggest
I suggested a process for dealing with these stupid NRHP HDs in the RFC discussion at Talk:List of RHPs in CT. I take time to make explicit sections for discussion at various central RI, CT, RI places, and you and others are busy deleting and ignoring. For example, split/merger discussion at Talk:Wilder Village Historic District. What do you suggest. I would appreciate some help stopping this nonsense. doncram (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

weasel words slandering
Enough with your assertions of weasel wording, as in this diff.

Please read the definition of weasel wording: "Weasel words are words or statements that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a phrase or a sentence without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them..... Weasel words do not really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.'''

For me to interpret the National Register of Historic Places database inclusion of a given architecture category for an NRHP HD, as implying that there are one or more examples of the given architecture in the NRHP HD, is not weasel wording, it is not trying to suggest an opinion, it is conveying factually a reasonable interpretation. What on earth do you believe, that there is no representation of the given architecture in the district? Also, you have previously labelled such statements as original research. It is not that either, it is reasonable interpretation without addition of personal opinion or speculation. doncram (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cades Cove
I remember this topic coming up before with a user I can't remember: if you were to read the nomination form in the way that I did, you would believe that the HD included everything above 2000 feet rather than below. I'll search for who it was so that I can find the form and my reasoning for said conclusion. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read through the nomination form again, I realised my previous error: the form lists agriculture as a major present use, and I can't imagine much farming taking place today above 2000 feet. If you want the nomination form, go here.  Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wilder, Vermont
Since you've been editing Wilder, Vermont and the associated HD in the last few days, would you offer an opinion on my proposed merger? Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

corrections to article
Hi - Please dont undo the changes I made to the First Presbyterian Church and Lewis Pintard House article which were made to fix part of the article and to help expand it. They are all based on sources that were already provided and I added two for further reading as well. Possibly my decision to move the sentence stating the buildings lot size of 3 acres to the first paragraph was not the best change however it didnt seem to fit in its original paragraph. ThnkYou --216.101.241.106 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I should have made an account for myself in the first place because I realized you might have wanted to respond to my message to you. I didnot know there are problems with pictures which is why I did not erase them myself. Thanks for your extra help. --Etaglio (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

George Jones Memorial Baptist Church, again
So you have the nom form now? I wondered what made you again interested in the church article :-) Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All are electronic? Please update the TN section at WP:NRHP, which says that only a few are so available.  Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see
Please see User talk:Polaron. doncram (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment?
Since you've been involved with this issue, I thought you might like to comment on this thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places.  Altairisfar talk  14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Norris example
Hey, I feel like a bit of an automaton for doing this, but I am going to start Norris District article now, and allow for development/discussion of whether it is the same or not as Norris, Tennessee. This is because your edit just now suggests the possibility that someone would dispute the NRHP HD is different than the town, while area figures in the town article already indicate that the NRHP HD is very different in size (besides other likely differences in history evoked by district elements vs. history of the town).

To be clear, my issue in general is that NRHP articles should be allowed. I "approve" of the general presence of redlinks in the TN NRHP list-articles, which suggest that NRHP articles will be allowed. In general I would and do defer to local editors who have specific knowledge and also awareness of the specifics of the NRHP HDs specifics, if they wish to create combo articles (as by Bms4880 with respect to Elkmont, Tennessee). Also in general i do not want to start NRHP stub articles, but where there is some indication that a separate article will be disputed, as by in some New England states by a kneejerk type of redirecting of NRHP HDs to towns/hamlets that do not show in-depth knowledge of the particulars, then I think it should be disputed (by creating an NRHP stub article) sooner rather than later or it is some kind of deathtrap for new editors. As i have said before, the NRHP HD articles can easily be wikipedia-notable articles with complementary, different foci than hamlet/town/whatever geo area articles that may overlap with their geographic areas.

So, let's go ahead and discuss the Norris District if you wish, hopefully which you would raise if you wish to do so by a merger proposal which would be the appropriate wikipedia process to consider it, by my understanding anyhow. doncram (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Doncram, I replied on your talk page, but you deleted the reply. Lest it be thought that I ignored your comments, here's what I said there:


 * Please refrain from starting articles about topics you don't actually know anything about (and don't have sources for) just because you can (and because it's an opportunity to get under the skin of other Wikipedians who know and care about those topics and will have to divert their attention from productive activity in order to engage in arguments with you). I see your actions related to Norris, Tennessee and Norris District purely as attempts to create wikidrama.


 * PS - Lest you fail to recognize this fact, the historically significant aspects/elements of the community that are the basis for the HD have long been a major focus of the article Norris, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (moved from my own Talk page): Please refrain from starting articles about topics you don't actually know anything about (and don't have sources for) just because you can (and because it's an opportunity to get under the skin of other Wikipedians who know and care about those topics and will have to divert their attention from productive activity in order to engage in arguments with you). I see your actions related to Norris, Tennessee and Norris District purely as attempts to create wikidrama.


 * PS - Lest you fail to recognize this fact, the historically significant aspects/elements of the community that are the basis for the HD have long been a major focus of the article Norris, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just don't feel like having another discussion section open at my Talk page, particularly another with a chiding tone to it, so I moved your comment, above, to here. I could chide you back for some of what you say, but instead I will just offer to you that I have done some reviewing of TN NRHP HD coverage, and I mostly do not have concerns, and I do not expect to engage in a lot of article creating in TN.  I have gone through about 1/3 of TN so far, and may make a few more minor contributions here and there as I continue to the end.  Perhaps there will be other interactions like the one at Talk:Elkmont, Tennessee, which I trust you will recognize as positive in a minor way.  I hope that this comment helps you in some way.


 * To respond about Norris in particular: I did start the Norris District article for reasons explained above, directly to you, beforehand, and this is entirely legitimate and constructive so far, and I certainly hope that it will remain entirely positive, but whether it does or not depends on others as well.  I also linked to it and otherwise slightly improved the Norris, Tennessee article (by fixing up a reference).  There is no need for "wikidrama" or for you or any editors investing any time whatsoever, you could just let those two articles be.  Whatever you say about the history of Norris, it has not been detracted from in any way, by the addition of a separate stub article on the NRHP HD.  The NRHP HD now serves to advertise to anyone local that pictures and development on the topic of the NRHP HD would be welcome, and since it mentions the areas of the two it opens the "research question" of what defines the historic district vs. the town in a low-key way that can just be left open there in the NRHP HD article until someone is moved to address it.  In my view, the only potential negative for readers and editors now is the merger proposal which you added, which I think is a minor detraction for readers and I agree is potentially a distraction for editors.  I think it would be best to remove the merger proposal and not have any discussion there at all.  But I will respond and discuss there if there is any discussion opened (so far there are just the merger proposal tags). doncram (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the Norris articles is at Talk:Norris, Tennessee, which is in the space where article-related discussion belongs. I believe that the NRIS values for the acreages of all three historic districts in Anderson County are too large by a factor of 10. Accordingly, your speculative statements at Norris District (about the HD area being vastly greater than the area of the city) are not only original research, but premised on erroneous information. --Orlady (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

stop with the personal insults
Orlady, i am getting sick and tired of your repeated insults. Please stop with the personal tone, and please stop with the spurious accusations that i am editing in violation of various policies, when I am not, or that my edits are "truly embarrassing" for you and so on, which is rubbish. I have for the most part not responded to your tone and your accusatory words in edit summaries and your Talk page comments, because for the most part those were spurious remarks that didn't bear on the ongoing discussions.

I appreciate somewhat that you backed down about calling some of my editing "weasel words", which you had accused me of on several occasions, but you did not really apologize, you just in effect left another insulting discussion section on my Talk page. Your repetitions that i am engaging in "original research" are just false. I believe in every case where you claim i am making an original research statement about a NRHP HD overlapping wholly or partly with a settlement, you actually agree with the truth of the statement. You tend to rewrite to avoid confronting the lack of precise info about overlaps, but I simply do not agree that is better. I do not repeatedly insult you about what you do, however, and these cases are not wp:OR.

I am trying to address Polaron's behavior, and to some extent your behavior, and I take care to try to discuss behavior and not the person. I appreciate your trying to focus on behavior for the most part, too, but the disrespectful tone, your use of sarcasm, and the inflamatory words you have been using are adding up to make your treatment of me personally insulting. Just stop, please. doncram (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

American City University
I seem to recall that places like these are something of a specialty of yours. A noob created this article, but then wanted to withdraw it after the edits got too critical. Have a look, will you? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured I'd let it stay up along with the apparently-affiliated Honolulu University, as guidance to potential students in places like Hong Kong (where the parent [affiliate?] IMA is located). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com acreage is off by a factor of 10
I did some research on the acreage listings in the National Register database, both in the main table (which I use for the infobox generator and which nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com uses for its output) and in the spatial database. It turns out that the acreage listed at nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com is off by a factor of 10, because they didn't realize the acreage in one of the tables should have had a decimal point in there.

I can add the acreage to the infobox generator if it would be worthwhile.

I mentioned this discrepancy at WT:NRHP already, but I'm going to copy it to a few of the talk pages of editors who have been dealing with this problem lately. (In other words, sorry for the spam.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

HI
I have a favor to ask you being an administrator. I tried to upload an image to wikipedia for an article im writing but it wouldn't let me because im a new user. I uploaded it to wikimedia. It has a speedy deletion message when uploaded it becuase it wasnt fair use even though I have a rationale for it. So if you could please movie it to wikipedia for me under the same file name that would be super.

Thanks for your help!!!!!!! Photo location:  File:Zero_Kazama.jpg

88aa77bb (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

HI AGAIN
COULD YOU TELL ME WHEN I CAN UPLOAD IMAGES AT WIKIPEDIA CAUSE IT WILL NOT LET ME NOW, AND THANKS FOR THE WELCOME MESSAGE TOO.

88aa77bb (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

HI AGAIN AGAIN
Okay, so I'll not SHOUT ABOUT UPLOADING PICTURES :-) My source for Harriman-in-two-counties is in the first sentence, reference [3] as of my last edit.  Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That person might be the reason for the confusion — perhaps the city annexed across the county line between 2000 and 2006? Still, if there's even a single person that was both a resident of Morgan County and a resident of the city of Harriman, I don't see how we could say that it wasn't in both counties.  Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they were a resident of the city and a property owner of the county, or vice versa (and thus entitled to vote in certain elections)? Or, more likely, they lived just outside the boundaries of the city, but on the other side of the county line? Folks are often appallingly imprecise in these matters. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More likely, the city annexed one parcel across the county line in order to do a favor for an influential businessman. Now that Harriman is "wet" (but in most of Tennessee liquor can't be sold in outside city limits), my best guess is that it was a liquor vendor. --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jvolkblum
FYI. You might want to triple-check that content the open proxy added. I would've removed it except for your check... Wknight94 talk  03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cumberland Gap HD
I'm not sure why the Harrogate idea is problematic — it's common for a multistate district to have separate locations given; in this case, it makes sense to say that the TN portion is near Harrogate, the KY portion near Middlesboro, and the VA portion near Gibson Station. For example, look at the East Oriental Covered Bridge, which is split between Juniata and Snyder counties in Pennsylvania: the Juniata list gives its location as Susquehanna Township, while the Snyder list gives its location as Perry Township.

Giving simply a community name is common, and in states like TN with no MCDs (one small reason I like my native Ohio :-) we have no real choice. Just glancing at the list, you know from the location column which ones are in communities and which ones aren't; and surely it's clear to the non-local reader that some of these aren't in these communities either. All this is to say — "near" isn't needed. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for removing the extra photo; I apparently wasn't paying attention. Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

possible sockpuppet infestation
I'm dropping you this note because you helped me with a sockpuppet investigation in the past, and I'd like your opinion. Please take a look at the history for Steve Brozak. I've counted at least four SPAs, and I think they may all be related in some fishy editing to the article. All of the edits are very pro-Brozak, have a tendancy to add external links in the prose, uploaded the same image multiple times, and try to remove any tags and criticism that appears on the article. What do you think?  bahamut0013  words deeds   09:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK
I've nominated Noah Ogle Place in Sevier County for DYK (just written a few hours ago by Bms4880); although the article looks great, I'm having trouble coming up with a good hook. Would you please try to find a better one than I've suggested? Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK credits
I can do credits. Shubinator (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The queue can be cleared now. Shubinator (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Shubinator (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message
I came back from holiday to find I'd missed your message on my talk page as follows: "DYK nomination of Church Army Chapel, Blackheath: Hello! Your submission of Church Army Chapel, Blackheath 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! Orlady (talk) 10:38 pm, 26 July 2009, Sunday (10 days ago) (UTC+1)" The link to the nomination no longer works, as it's been archived, and I can't find it. If there are still problems with the page, please would you kindly let me know? I'm not worried about DYK now - just want to see that the article page is OK. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Orlady for your prompt reply. As I said, I don't mind the article not getting the DYK, but I want to put the article right.  I agree the citations need to be improved.  However in the past week I have acquired the architect's own archives, plus a handful of photocopied news articles from Greenwich Heritage Centre. I also have the architect's own book containing the painting and a description. The Church Army has just rung to say they will post me photocopies from their own archives, with written permission to publish on the Church Army Chapel, Blackheath page only. So things are moving ahead citations-wise.  Unfortunately the original plans for the chapel itself are still missing, though I'm attempting to trace them.  I know who had them in 1989 . . . wish me luck.  I've also visited the chapel and taken loads of photos - too many for the page.  There must be a way of putting them in their own category on Commons and then making a link to them from the page, but I don't know how. It's a huge job, but when I've finished the research I'm sending all the papers to the RIBA archives. Thanks for your kind help so far.--Storye book (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Orlady for your kind help. Now all I need is to find out how to make a new category on Commons for the Church Army Chapel in the first place.  I guess there must be a page on it somewhere.  Thanks again.--Storye book (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for making that category for me. I didn't expect that, and I really appreciate it.  Please let me know if there's anything I can do in return.  Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Burial place of Richard Leroy Walters
Thanks for the heads up - you are probably right, especially if you know Phoenix. For me, it would be OR to make the change, but it looks logical. All I can say is that the source says, "Walters’ funeral was held on October 9th at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church in Scottsdale and was buried with full military honors at the Military Cemetery in Phoenix." Is there another Military Cemetery in Phoenix? Smallbones (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health
Thank you for your contributions! I am not against negative information at all, I am for a balanced representation of the subject. I am not involved with the institution in any way but have been appaled by the biassed edits of 4 conspiring editors. Please do check the talk page, I have explained my side fully and cited relevant WP policies and guidelines in support of what I believe are necessary changes, which involves the deletion of extremely POV and unecessary elements of the article. Your edits reflect true neutrality. Kindly comment on whether Goldacre's article was a news report or an opinion piece. Here is a sample phrase from that reference:


 * "In fact, I don’t care what kind of squabbles McKeith wants to engage in over the technicalities of whether a non-accredited correspondence-course PhD from the US entitles you, by the strictest letter of the law, to call yourself 'doctor': to me, nobody can be said to have a meaningful qualification in any biology-related subject if they make the same kind of basic mistakes made by McKeith." – Ben Goldacre, The Guardian February 12, 2007

I am happy to know that there more than one even-minded editor on board! – Shannon Rose 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)