Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doncram&diff=302960112&oldid=302943807 19 July 2009] - I had posted a concern on your talk page about a pattern of behavior, with reference to a specific example. You removed it from your talk page with the note "i just don't feel like having this discussion at my talk page..." and you replied on my talk page. Since your reply was focused on the particulars of your edit to the specific article, you made it into a content discussion and I moved it to the relevant article talk page (it's now at [[Talk:Norris, Tennessee]]), where the discussion grew to great length. It appears to me that you chose to convert that criticism of a behavior pattern into a content discussion. |
::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doncram&diff=302960112&oldid=302943807 19 July 2009] - I had posted a concern on your talk page about a pattern of behavior, with reference to a specific example. You removed it from your talk page with the note "i just don't feel like having this discussion at my talk page..." and you replied on my talk page. Since your reply was focused on the particulars of your edit to the specific article, you made it into a content discussion and I moved it to the relevant article talk page (it's now at [[Talk:Norris, Tennessee]]), where the discussion grew to great length. It appears to me that you chose to convert that criticism of a behavior pattern into a content discussion. |
||
::::I don't particularly want to discuss your behavior on my user talk page. In fact, I wish I didn't see a need to discuss your behavior anywhere, because I would greatly prefer for you to stop behaving like an [expletive deleted]. I hope that your recent one-week block would help you to realize that your continuing conflicts with other users have more to do with you than with the other users. (Re-read [[WP:NOTTHEM]].) If continuing discussion of your behavior is needed, I think a general Wikipedia noticeboard would be the appropriate venue for such a discussion. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady#top|talk]]) 20:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
::::I don't particularly want to discuss your behavior on my user talk page. In fact, I wish I didn't see a need to discuss your behavior anywhere, because I would greatly prefer for you to stop behaving like an [expletive deleted]. I hope that your recent one-week block would help you to realize that your continuing conflicts with other users have more to do with you than with the other users. (Re-read [[WP:NOTTHEM]].) If continuing discussion of your behavior is needed, I think a general Wikipedia noticeboard would be the appropriate venue for such a discussion. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady#top|talk]]) 20:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::You sound pretty insulting to me. If you don't want to discuss me, then please stop. |
|||
:::::I am not completely sure what is acceptable for you to say at Talk pages of Userspace vs. Talk pages of Mainspace. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOld_Town_%28Franklin%2C_Tennessee%29&action=historysubmit&diff=419740315&oldid=419728277 this] was a salvo of yours at the Old Town Franklin Tennessee article, which included diffs of your comments that I had felt were rude and chose to delete. Right, you did not copy-paste exactly what i deleted, you included it into mainspace Talk in the form of a diff. I am not immediately finding diff of your copy-pasting in some other circumstance relatively recently. I'll post it here if/when I find it. --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 21:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:48, 23 April 2011
![]() |
---|
8 June 2024 |
Welcome!
Hello, Orlady, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Wrathchild (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Our Molten salt reactor article
When you get the chance, could you take a look at this? It seems pretty one-sided. Furthermore, there have been a wide range of molten salt reactors but this article has been pretty much taken over by advocates of one variant, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). It seems to me we probably need one article for molten salt reactors and another LFTRs. To some extent, some non-engineering enthusiasts seem to be confusing reactor cooling variations (water vs. liquid salt, etc.) vs fuel cycles (thorium vs. uranium).
The LFTR reactor design has been getting a lot of hype in the last 2 weeks; I'm instinctively wary of new (or resurrected) reactor designs that solve all the world's problems without any of the costs or issues associated with today's designs. They bring to mind some comments from Hyman Rickover almost 60 years ago (and still true):
I'm not saying these designs aren't promising -- just that it takes a lot of practical engineering work to get a design from the expert pages of Wired magazine to the real world of some commercial reactor site. In any event, we need a neutral article, especially now when the concept is getting a lot of hype after the Fukushima debacle.
You may be especially interested in the LFTR since the original work on this was done at ORNL. Alvin Weinberg was the father of this design and its leading proponent.
As always, thanks so much for being the "editor's editor" here on Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- PS, I've left a similar message for Georgewilliamherbert; I understand he's got some nuclear expertise. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Familar?
Look familiar? Only this time with a nude park proclivity? Wknight94 talk 17:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Triune, Tennessee
Hello! Your submission of Triune, Tennessee at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Old Town map
I've emailed you the Old Town site map. Bms4880 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Triune, Tennessee
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK Nomination for William Yardley
Hi... Thanks for your response regarding the DYK nom for Yardley. My question is more of an academic one, and not about the article or nom itself. As it happens, I self-nominated in DYK today (only my second time) and my hook (from Spirit Fruit Society) contains the phrase, "...is considered to have... ", and it makes me a little uneasy. I don't know if the 'fact' in my nom is provable or not - just that my referenced author says it. I'm really just wondering if that's an issue for the article or for the DYK hook. Just learning... :) Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand your rationale in removing the contributions of a block evading user, but the contribution in question seems to improve the article. Would you mind terribly if I reinstated? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion is you should use the source to write your own content. Jvolkblum's ban was largely due to misrepresenting sources, copyright violation, and plagiarism. Use the source, but please don't use the content. Wknight94 talk 18:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I replied on ScottyBerg's talk page, with advice very similar to Wknight94's. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I wasn't familiar with the history of this guy. Thanks for the advice. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I replied on ScottyBerg's talk page, with advice very similar to Wknight94's. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This unexplained deletion of sourced material by user:calamitybrook just materialized at Taconic Mountains: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taconic_Mountains&action=historysubmit&diff=423423220&oldid=423336353 Asking for intervention as it seems destined to spiral without some oversight. 24.147.66.106 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Knoxville Riot of 1919
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hollingworth Magniac DYK submission
Hi, sorry to bother you but how is good old Hollingworth looking now? I see it is still on the DYK talk page and looks like a poor orphan. Is there anything else that needs to be done to the article? Best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Retiring from Wikipedia
I just wanted to let you know that I am retiring from Wikipedia effective this weekend. This is not related to issues regarding policy, other issues, or Wikipedia. My personal priorities have changed in the sense that I am engaged to be married along with a job-related exam that I will take in October.
I wish to thank you for working with me on various issues within Wikipedia. Chris (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Norman D. Stevens page deleted
Hello Orlady, I am writing to inquire about your decision to delete the wikipedia page on Norman D. Stevens, founder of the Molesworth Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molesworth_Institute
Norman has contributed a lifetime of historic academic and creative work to the library profession, and I was extremely surprised when I found that his page had been deleted. I am writing to ask if you could either reinstate the page or if I should create a new one. Thanks. Opal Whiteley (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Norman D. Stevens article was proposed for deletion, and later deleted by me, for failing to meet the Wikipedia general notability guideline. Additionally, it was an unsourced biography of a living person (see WP:BLP). I can email you the article or restore the article to your user space, but it should not be returned to article space until it cites sufficient sources so that it complies with Wikipedia policies on verifiability and the notability guidelines. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Orlady if you could restore the article to my user space that would be best, and I will add the required citations to comply with wikipedia regulations before uploading to the article space. Opal Whiteley (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The page is now at User:Opal Whiteley/Norman Stevens. --Orlady (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nuclear power population
Editor, I appreciate your changes to the headings on the nuclear power plants pages, and the conversion, but you're also removing information about cities surrounding nuclear power plants, saying that the information is not in the source cited. Are you saying that the lists of cities and distances is not in the article cited? Not so. See the bottom of the article's text, where each one is listed. I've restored the city names and distancies to the entries.Extremely hot (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Aha! In the visual clutter on the MSNBC website (which is not one I am familiar with), I did not find the indication that there was additional text not displayed on the first page. I don't much like the way the information is presented (it makes sense in the context of an article about all U.S. commercial reactors, but singling out one or two cities per article is not very encyclopedia-like), but I agree that is supported by the source. --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for William F. Yardley
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Charles W. Cansler
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Austin-East High School
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
American Academy of Financial Management
Need help from editor who understands finance or governmental sector. 2 Editors continue to remove the primary governmental references from this article American Academy of Financial Management
Can you help somehow to make sure that the government links and regulatory references and citations remain in the article to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but rather include government links, the top US accreditation agencies, and FINRA and US Government referneces to AAFM. Most of the information that is included in todays article was approved by the two editors last year. Not sure why these editors now think the references and facts should be deleted at this time? Please help get this article right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Conversation started by Orlady on Doncram's talk page and moved here by Doncram: Please refrain from creating stubs with placeholders waiting to be filled in
(copy-paste-moved from User talk:Doncram ) I would have thought that you would be chastened by the block that recently ended, and that you might refrain from the editing behavior that has resulted in so many conflicts with other users. Furthermore, I would have expected that you would have used the forced time off to develop content that would be ready for article space from the get-go. Accordingly, I was seriously dismayed to see that your first new article since the block, Dinnie Apartments, is yet another stub constructed almost entirely from the cryptic details in an NRIS listing, complete with "fill-in-the-blank" style statements:
- It was built or has other significance in 1903.
- -- If you don't know what the date signifies, perhaps you are not ready to discuss it in an article. (Also, I* see that the nomination for the historic district says what happened in 1903.)
- It was designed and/or built by Dinnie Brothers.
- -- As above, if you don't know, perhaps you are not ready to discuss this in an article. (Also, the nomination for the historic district describes the role of the Dinnie Brothers.)
- When listed the property included one contributing building and one non-contributing building.
- --Again, if you don't know anything about these buildings, you're not ready to write an article. Furthermore, the terminology "contributing" is not relevant to a listing for a property; it only applies to historic districts.
- The listing is for an area of less than 1 acre (0.40 ha).
- --Why is this an encyclopedic detail?
And finally, there's this collection of blanks to be filled in: "___ (, 19). "NRHP Inventory-Nomination: Dinnie Apartments / 32GF634" (PDF). National Park Service.{{cite web}}
:|author=
has numeric name (help); Check date values in:|date=
(help) and Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___ (see photo captions page __ of text document)"
--Since that link actually points to a document, it ought to have been possible to include the reference, instead of a set of placeholder blanks.
Additionally, the ID number (32GF634) that you found in NRIS is not encyclopedic information that belongs in article text. At most, it should be limited to the reference citation and possibly also the infobox.
If you wish to avoid future confrontations -- not to mention future blocks, one thing you could do is refrain from creating stubs filled with placeholder language. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Orlady, please back off. I created that article and filled it out already quite a bit more, specifically to this version before you completed your first posting in this little discussion here. You are off-base in your general views, I believe, and your following me and your making a critical remark like this is not constructive, I believe. Also, the article you question relates to a specific discussion at wt:NRHP about creation of short articles on NRHP-listed places in Grand Forks County. You did not comment in that discussion. But the consensus was that creating articles like that is fine and good.
- Pretty sure you just made up that consensus.. the consensus was that the articles should not be left in the sad state that Dinnie Apartments is in but rather brought up to at least a few paragraphs before being moved into mainspace. I appreciate the fact that you at least took the time to include 3-4 non-bot sentences in the article, but I personally don't see that as "pretty good status." I mean, dude, at least learn to write a complete paragraph. This skipping a line between each sentence and having a bunch of random facts thrown on the page is extremely annoying. I know you're frustrated, Doncram, but you're going to continue to be frustrated/condemned/blocked until you get with the program. No one in the project wants this crap; please listen to what these people are saying, or you could find yourself blocked for longer than a week next time.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now I think you're just being petty. SarekOfVulcan added one sentence and revised/improved one other, in these 2 edits. I am glad SarekOfVulcan visited and contributed a bit. But I did more than that in my edits preceding those; your statement here seems like posturing to mislead others who will read this. What is this, a trial, anyhow? Further, it is misleading that you struck off just one item in your list of original complaints above, when in fact the first item and perhaps more had already been addressed by me BEFORE you even posted your list of complaints! --doncram 12:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have many disagreements with me. The right forum I believe is dispute resolution. I request that you participate in a mediated discussion. I think that is best because you and I could probably speak relatively frankly, and it would not require excessive diffs and exhaustive study of all past interactions between us. Would you agree to mediation to discuss your/our differences, please? --doncram 20:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
(end of copy-paste-moved) Hi Orlady, I'd really rather not have a lot of negative stuff piled up at my Talk page, am moving this here. On a previous occasion when I deleted your negative-seeming note on my Talk page, you copy-pasted it elsewhere. I am willing to discuss whatever you want, if you will please be courteous. I suggest mediation as the best forum, or other form of dispute resolution. --doncram 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- The article Dinnie Apartments still has most of the issues that I identified in the comments I posted on your talk page, Doncram. And contrary to your perception that I have a personal dispute with you, the problem I have is with your attitude that numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't apply to you. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree. Actually I think you have an attitude and your editing is sometimes/often contrary to some Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We will have to agree to disagree, okay?
- I notice you've now followed my edits to several articles I recently created. I object to this edit by you in whose edit summary you assert that property size and presence of contributing and noncontributing buildings on the property are not relevant. I think those facts are very relevant in articles about NRHP-listed places; they are commonly included in such articles. If you seriously wish to change general practice in historic site article writing, I suggest your opening an objective discussion, say a neutrally worded RFC, at some suitable central place.
- In fact I will support you if you take steps towards revising the NRHP infobox to include a field to hold other identifiers. However I object to your simply removing other identifier type of information selectively from articles that I happen to touch. There are many hundreds of articles I am sure that have archeological site numbers or state historic site number or other numbers in their text. I would support some revision of general treatment, but I object to your following me and your finding fault selectively with me, where i am following usual practice. --doncram 00:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am profoundly uninterested in the NRHP infobox. The fact that it is important to you will not cause me to devote energy to revising it. As for the items I removed from Dinnie Apartments and other articles, I explained my logic at Talk:Dinnie Apartments, as follows:
- The items I removed are all administrative details that likely are important to zoning authorities, the local property tax assessor, etc., but lack encyclopedic significance. The numerical code/identifier for the property is included in a reference citation, so it should not need to be recorded elsewhere in the article (similarly, the ISBN number of a book is not normally a subject for text discussion in an article). The business about the size of the lot being less than one acre is presumably related to the legal description of the property (of interest to tax assessor and zoning authority), but it's not awfully informative (we can't tell if it's 0.1 acre or 0.5 acre or 0.95 acre, and in any event it doesn't say anything about the historic building). The information on the nom form about the contributing building and the noncontributing building seems to have to do with the fact that there's a small storage building out back that isn't historic; that's possibly important information for the local historic zoning officer and the tax assessor to have in their records, but it's not of particular interest for an encyclopedia. Not everything that's documented by a reliable source belongs in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am profoundly uninterested in the NRHP infobox. The fact that it is important to you will not cause me to devote energy to revising it. As for the items I removed from Dinnie Apartments and other articles, I explained my logic at Talk:Dinnie Apartments, as follows:
- Exactly: you are "profoundly uninterested" in these type of articles and issues. In previous periods of your following me and disputing, you have scoffed at coverage of architectural details, where a place is NRHP-listed for its architecture. I don't want to argue the details with you about whether a given article about a NRHP listed place can mention the area of the property, if you are not interested in the details at a given article. You are also not interested enough to raise general questions about issues that go across articles. So, please don't follow me to such articles and raise dispute about small details. --doncram 11:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- My concern is about a veteran editor's persistence in creating article-space content that is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You have claimed in the past that you create these stubs so that newbie editors can improve the articles, but it looks to me like a newbie interested in the the topics would be more likely to be intimidated by them. When confronted by a stub full of junk information (like a serial number that somebody once assigned to a building) and an infobox (whose formatting is not easy for newbies to understand), I have a hunch that a prospective contributor would most likely say "I'd better not touch that because I don't understand it." --Orlady (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- You have made more derogatory statements about me before, but those are fighting-type words and constitute, or verge on, violation of wp:NPA. wp:NPA states: "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." I object to the tone and your intent, which seems to be to inhibit me from editing in Wikipedia. Would you clarify about that: is that your objective? --doncram 14:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Adventist articles
I've been going around editing a lot of Adventist articles recently. I noticed that there was a vandal on the Highland View Academy page, User:Renees kids which readded information from the IP. I don't know if you noticed that the IP was from Hagerstown, the town HVA is located in, and I think the user name, Renees kids has something to do with Renee Williams, the Director of Recruitment and the person running this twitter account. Doesn't that create a suspicion of a conflict of interest? BelloWello (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- It did appear likely that the user was affiliated. However, the user name does not violate policy -- and, frankly, I'm more concerned with maintaining article quality than with prosecuting people for COI. The edits have been reverted and the user was warned. I see no need for additional action at this time. --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Originally on User talk:Doncram and moved here by Doncram: "Your edits to my talk page"
I guess I need to accept the fact that you refuse to allow me to communicate with you on this talk page. It's your page and you make the rules for it. I don't particularly like the fact that you insist on moving discussions to my user talk page, but since that's apparently a place where you will reply to me, I guess I can live with it. However, I draw the line at your insistence on taking control of the organization of my talk page, as you did in this edit. For someone who is so touchy about what other people say on his talk page, you are awfully free with yourself on my page. I hope that you know better than to repeat that kind of action. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Orlady, I moved the title you had created to a lower level, as it is impractical to have edit summaries that long. --doncram 11:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- True enough. However, the fundamental problem is that it is impractical to communicate with a user who insists on moving my messages from his talk page to mine. Once again, I've edited the heading of a section (this one) to clarify what it is and where it came from. --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your acknowledgement of my preference that way, in your posting this to my Talk page, was ironic. To be clear, I do object to your commenting at my Talk page. Please don't. In the past you and have occasionally cooperated, but your focus upon me and your comments at my Talk page have seemed all negative for a while now. Please desist, or take it to appropriate dispute resolution.
- I will respond to your accusations here, however, as you seem to want to have discussion here, and as in the past when I have removed your comments that I deemed rude from my Talk page, you have plastered copies of them into Talk pages of mainspace articles, which seems worse for Wikipedia. --doncram 14:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- User talk pages are an appropriate place for commenting on a user's behavior. Various message boards also are appropriate for that purpose. I agree with you that article talk pages, wikiProject talk pages, etc., are not appropriate places for discussing other users. I hope that your comment means that you will no longer be making personal accusations (against me, Polaron, Blueboar, Dudemanfellabra, etc.) on content-specific talk pages. I've searched through your user talk page to find situations where you removed a comment of mine and I "plastered copies" into Talk pages of mainspace articles. I found exactly one instance where I copied a general comment about your behavior onto an article talk page:
- 19 July 2009 - I had posted a concern on your talk page about a pattern of behavior, with reference to a specific example. You removed it from your talk page with the note "i just don't feel like having this discussion at my talk page..." and you replied on my talk page. Since your reply was focused on the particulars of your edit to the specific article, you made it into a content discussion and I moved it to the relevant article talk page (it's now at Talk:Norris, Tennessee), where the discussion grew to great length. It appears to me that you chose to convert that criticism of a behavior pattern into a content discussion.
- I don't particularly want to discuss your behavior on my user talk page. In fact, I wish I didn't see a need to discuss your behavior anywhere, because I would greatly prefer for you to stop behaving like an [expletive deleted]. I hope that your recent one-week block would help you to realize that your continuing conflicts with other users have more to do with you than with the other users. (Re-read WP:NOTTHEM.) If continuing discussion of your behavior is needed, I think a general Wikipedia noticeboard would be the appropriate venue for such a discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- User talk pages are an appropriate place for commenting on a user's behavior. Various message boards also are appropriate for that purpose. I agree with you that article talk pages, wikiProject talk pages, etc., are not appropriate places for discussing other users. I hope that your comment means that you will no longer be making personal accusations (against me, Polaron, Blueboar, Dudemanfellabra, etc.) on content-specific talk pages. I've searched through your user talk page to find situations where you removed a comment of mine and I "plastered copies" into Talk pages of mainspace articles. I found exactly one instance where I copied a general comment about your behavior onto an article talk page:
- You sound pretty insulting to me. If you don't want to discuss me, then please stop.
- I am not completely sure what is acceptable for you to say at Talk pages of Userspace vs. Talk pages of Mainspace. this was a salvo of yours at the Old Town Franklin Tennessee article, which included diffs of your comments that I had felt were rude and chose to delete. Right, you did not copy-paste exactly what i deleted, you included it into mainspace Talk in the form of a diff. I am not immediately finding diff of your copy-pasting in some other circumstance relatively recently. I'll post it here if/when I find it. --doncram 21:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)