FormerNukeSubmariner (talk | contribs) |
FormerNukeSubmariner (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 372: | Line 372: | ||
P.S. [http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm This is just one] of many data sources quoted in what you deleted in its entirety. Clearly, given that we are dealing with a radionuclide -- plutonium-239 -- with a 24,000 year half-life, comments on the impact on Denver are both encyclopedic and a public service. This is a very straightforward situation, and yet you have acted both wrongly and with a very clear POV yourself. I am very honestly shocked. --[[User:FormerNukeSubmariner|FormerNukeSubmariner]] ([[User talk:FormerNukeSubmariner|talk]]) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
P.S. [http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm This is just one] of many data sources quoted in what you deleted in its entirety. Clearly, given that we are dealing with a radionuclide -- plutonium-239 -- with a 24,000 year half-life, comments on the impact on Denver are both encyclopedic and a public service. This is a very straightforward situation, and yet you have acted both wrongly and with a very clear POV yourself. I am very honestly shocked. --[[User:FormerNukeSubmariner|FormerNukeSubmariner]] ([[User talk:FormerNukeSubmariner|talk]]) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
WE have in turn been referred to the article's talk page to resovle the situation. In the spirit of good intentions, I ask that you undelete the article pending a public airing out of this issue. Needless to say, given the wide body of evidence regarding the impact of plutonium on Denver, your unilateral actions to delete the article outright were heavy-handed, and not what I'm used to seeing from a Wikipedia administrator. --[[User:FormerNukeSubmariner|FormerNukeSubmariner]] ([[User talk:FormerNukeSubmariner|talk]]) 22:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:22, 3 September 2011
16 May 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)
25 DYK Nomination Medal
The 25 DYK Nomination Medal | ||
After nominating a bunch of other people's articles for DYK this past week, I have gained a much greater appreciation of the many challenges of nominating other's articles for DYK. Therefore, I award you this 25 DYK nomination medal, with the utmost admiration for your efforts to encourage other users on DYK. OCNative (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
Miss Universe 2011
Sir, excuse me! I'm not advertising or whatsoever in Wikipedia. I just providing SOURCES for Miss Universe 2011 section. For your info sir. Besides Beauty Mania is not my personal website. It is a Organization concerning Beauty Pageants.
I guess you are from "Times of Beauty" website. Look at the other pages who also indicating sources from "Times of Beauty" website. Is that advertising also? Well I noticed that TIMES OF BEAUTY site IS advertising their site on Wikipedia.
It is UNFAIR for me the way you treat me like this. I just doing my work as a pageant observer. Besides I think my sources is more reliable than other sites.
FYI.
Anyway, I want to solve this problem and that is why I want to talk to you. We can solve this in a diplomatic manner.
Rellon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC).
- I have no affiliation, nor interest, in beauty pageant websites. The rest of my response is on your talk page. --Orlady (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK sir, I understand. But please be fair. But I will still provide reliable sources in Wikipedia. I also want to clear things: THE SOURCES/ WEBSITES I'm posting is NOT my WEBSITE and I have NO interest with those wesbites. As a pageant observer who has EXCELLENT knowledge about Beauty pageants, I just want to contribute reliable sources. It happens that I find Beauty Mania more reliable source than other pageant websites.
- Again, if you think I'm advertising, please look at Miss World 2011 page and see who's advertising their sites e.g. Times of Beauty, Global Beauties, etc.
Manhattan Project FAC
Hi Oak Ridge lady. You might want to do a review of the Manhattan Project, now at FAC. OR features a lot, of course, in the article.TCO (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Allan Jones
Hello Orlady! I am new to Wikipedia and so be gentle and patient... but I do disagree that Allan Jones is not notable, at least in Cleveland TN which the page originates. I will not make any more edits on this page because of the COI WWIO articles, but I do dispute the addition of that one line. I have been a lifelong Cleveland resident and I assure you that everyone knows Allan Jones... I'd not even heard about some of the other people. Check out this Google search. PS it is faster to e-mail me at jennbo@gmail.com http://www.google.com/search?q=allan+jones+cleveland+tn&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.113.34 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, the third-party reliable sources are enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's criteria (please note that "notability" here is not related to being well-known locally). The references to his foundation's website at http://www.wallanjones.com that you supplied previously do not demonstrate notability. I restored his name to the article, but it would be nice if there were an article about him. Also, if you plan to continue contributing, I suggest that you register as a user. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hi- I am not trying to vandalize, I was just correcting some obsolete terms, thanks for informing me. I will also cite my corrections..
Famdopel (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
PBS
I do no think that your closing of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer was factually accurate. -- PBS (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will go through all of them with you. But lets start with this one "In another example, it is noted that in October 2010 PBS was blocked for tendentious editing, then was unblocked after he promised not to edit the articles in contention or their talk pages while an ongoing RFC was open. While PBS apparently complied with the letter of that promise, he violated its spirit by pursuing some of his concerns related to those articles in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard." Did you read the opinions of the other administrators involved in the discussion over that blocking? The general opinion was that it was out of order (see link to my talk page and the ANI) so why did you not mention that in you summary? You also make a statement of bad faith my bad faith without checking the times of the start of the thread. I started the thread before the Cirt block my account. So where is the bad faith on my behalf? Again if you are going to give an impartial summary then you should have noted that in your summary. Likewise "While PBS apparently complied with the letter of that promise" either I complied with the letter of the promise or I did not, if you are going to impartially summarise then you must have looked in detail at the events and know whether I complied with the letter of whether I did not, in which case whey the qualifier "apparently"? -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up on your broad comment.
I cited that incident as one example of a pattern of "manipulating Wikipedia process" to advance your goals. Interestingly (or should I say "ironically"?), your protest here seems to be another example of the same phenomenon. There definitely were serious process-related problems with that block. However, by focusing on the process issues, you seem to be trying to minimize the contentions that led to the block. I do not doubt that you complied with the letter of the agreement you made in order to get rid of the block. However, your subsequent actions did not comply with its spirit. It is very unusual for a contributor of your high quality and long tenure to elicit the negative reactions that were expressed in the RFC; I perceived (and I still believe) that one cause of those surprisingly negative reactions was a pattern of emphasizing process, while overlooking (or paying insufficient attention to) the effect of behavior on human emotions. --Orlady (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up on your broad comment.
- "manipulating Wikipedia process to advance your goals", is a biased way of phrasing it and not the wording of an impartial summary. It is bias because of the use of the word "manipulating" and the phrase "your goals". It is not manipulating a Wikipedia process to expect that all editors abide by the policies of Wikipedia. I follow Wikipedia polices and press for alter those policies and guidelines if I think that there are contradictions in the polices and guidelines. In this I am no different from may other editors who edit policy pages. "your goals" implies that my goals are different from other editors goals (and somehow malignant) yet do you have any evidence that I have ever done anything on Wikipedia that was not done to enhance the encyclopaedia? If you did not mean "your malignant goals" what exactly do you mean by "your goals"?
- You write "There definitely were serious process-related problems with that block." then as an impartial closing administrator why did you not mention that in your closing summary?
- "I do not doubt that you complied with the letter of the agreement you made in order to get rid of the block." The block would have gone anyway, I suggested a longer hiatus than was asked of me to give Cirt an easy way out so that he would not loose any more face than he already had:
- (Actually, I had in mind the duration of the original block, but it might create a framework for discussion here, at least.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- That would be agreeable to me, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- for the sake of harmony, I will agree not to edit either article Targeted killing and Assassination or their talk pages until the RFC ends (which will be more than a week). But Cirt this is conditional on the understanding that that neither you or I will block each others account again, or solicit another to do so with communications that are not logged on the Wikipedia pages. --PBS (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- There were also serious breaches in the behaviour of the counterpart to the edit to the page. If an editor makes an edit which is reverted they are meant to discuss the changes on the talk page before reverting (WP:BOLD). They are not meant to accuse an editor who makes a good faith edit of vandalism, revert, make the vandalism claim again, revert, and then play the system by asking for page protection knowing that if the counterpart reverts before the protection is applied the counter-party will be in breach of 3RR. You did not comment on that behaviour in you summary to explain why the block was so out of order. The point is that I tend not to write down bad faith comments like this because I expect others to read the details. It was not I who played the system that day it was the counter-party. What should happened was that the page should have been reverted to the last stable version on the page (the redirect) until the RFC about whether the page should remain a redirect or become an article ended. That that did not happen was a shame. One has to wonder what was going through the mind of the administrator who protected the page and blocked my account because he ought to have been sharp enough to see when someone is playing the system through the blatant manipulation of 3RR and then asking for protection.
Koontz House - FYI
Koontz House may soon be moved to another title but the interesting thing is that a new user has come along and tagged it as having multiple issues. This user is currently communicating at User_talk:Sadads and apparently is a "descendant" of the house (do houses breed over your side of the pond?)
It is, of course, a Doncram NRHP stub. I'll keep an eye on it and try to assist the user. I have no idea what, if anything, has evolved on the Doncram front of late but hopefully he'll be happy to see one of his stubs developed! - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Never heard of people being descended from houses, but I did comment at User talk:Sadads. --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
FIBAA
Hi Orlady, I wanted to seek your advice....Information on FIBAA is available in the German language on Wikipedia : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_International_Business_Administration_Accreditation. Is there any chance to have it in English? Auditguy (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the invite
Hi Orlady, and thanks for your invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Appalachia -- it's good to be wanted! I'm going to decline for now -- NOT for any lack of affection for that rumpled-blanket landscape of yours, just out of caution about over-promising what I can contribute to. Trying to be realistic. (A new thing for me.) Appreciate the thought, and hope to see you around! --Lockley (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Glad to know that you care. Know that if you ever need advice on topics related to the region, you may find some input over at the Wikiproject. --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Oakridge, Tennessee in Montgomery County, Tennessee
Hi- I came across the article you started Oakridge, Tennessee in Montgomery County. I am working on articles on the various Wisconsin unincorporated communities when I came across your article when I started an article Oakridge, Wisconsin and added it to the dab page. Please check the Oakridge, Tennessee article if the gnis is correct. I hope you are doing well-thank you-RFD (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
OMG, ROTFL, and so forth
In all your time at the august institution of Wikipedia, have you ever tangled with a Government Legal Department? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe somebody once told me "All your Government Legal Departments belong to me", and new government departments seem to pop up frequently around Wikpedia, but otherwise I haven't seen that particular one before. Thanks for The Onion link. LOL. --Orlady (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Tennessee Center for Policy Research
Nice job on User:Orlady/Tennessee Center for Policy Research; seems ready for mainspace, yes? Flowanda | Talk 02:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite. I need to make some changes before it goes public, as there are some potential issues related to article balance and BLP. While researching it, I ended up researching and reworking the State Policy Network article, and haven't come back to the Tennessee article to make changes based on what I learned while researching the umbrella group. But thanks for reminding me! I'll tackle this soon. --Orlady (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
APUS Double-Check
Hi Orlady!
I cleaned up APUS as best as my abilities would allow, and was wondering if you could give it a look-over. Thanks!--Honesroc (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Too cumbersosme to refer to the references?
Explain....74.66.31.24 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC) SLY111
- hey...MISS
you wish isn't my command, but now you need not refer to the references for Bernstein's spot on description. 74.66.31.24 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC) SLY111
- Apparently you are referring to my edit at Wolf's Head (secret society). That article is full of direct quotations that do not contain in-text identification of the sources of the quotations. When the encyclopedia uses someone else's words in that fashion, it is necessary to identify whose words are quoted. Footnotes identifying the quoted work are necessary, but not sufficient. I flagged a couple (by no means all) of the problematic quotations in that article as needing in-text attribution. The specific quotation that you apparently think is OK is in the following sentence:
- The Grey Friars, as had been written about the music of Charles Ives, "had a wicked sense of humor and deliberately set out to deflate every kind of pomposity."
- I saw a double issue with the quotation in that sentence. Who wrote that about the music of Charles Ives and who applied those words to the Grey Friars? When you quote someone else's remarks, you need to identify the speaker. You have now nicely answered the first question (who said this about Charles Ives), but the second question is still unanswered. --Orlady (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- hey...MISS II
I believe I've absorbed the spirit of your suggestion and have reworked the section that included the sentence you questioned.74.66.31.24 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)SLY111
- Yes, that resolves the concern I expressed via Template:Whosequote, but I confess to being puzzled by your radical changes to the text of the section... --Orlady (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
In brief
I thought the other material was interesting, but it was not in line with the rewrite concerning the Grey Friars and the society's stand against "pomposity" or "arrogance", perceived and actual, of the other peer societies. What makes W.H.S. W.H.S. is a rigorous check on the arrogance associated with the other two peer organizations. Humor is often the tool of choice.
The first society is an international political powerhouse, and the second society is a national social powerhouse, both defined by membership that has matriculated at Yale. W.H.S. helps power Yale, and that is almost enough for it. The former Third Society has assumed the position of honest broker in a collegiate trust that dates back more than a century and manages the university, one hopes, for the betterment of "all".
Granted, I have my bias, and I in part made my choice informed by this really-inside-baseball-of-Yale stuff. Keys, for example, is snobby: Mayflower and Astor 400 families and that ilk. Bones, for example, is for the super-achiever among a tribe of achievers. Wolf's Head is for the gregarious preppy. I was one, and I haven't looked back. The gregarious loathes the snob, and looks down on the super-achiever who looks down upon you. So, for example, the Benet putdown (his older brother was a member of Keys) of the undergraduate aspiration to join a society, authored in fact with a classmate who was a member of Bones and future publishing star, John Farrar, was ill-placed with the edit you suggested. Pluck one apple, and all the apples move in the cart.
I suggest that the entry's tone is now fuller. Readers removed from the Yale community could almost care less about the "baseball" material I mentioned above, but it does inform the institutions mentioned above. I have received muscular help in modulating my tone for the entry,and I thank you and others. Thanks again.74.66.31.24 (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)SLY111
- Your desire to focus on the "really-inside-baseball-of-Yale stuff" would be appropriate if this website were Yale-o-pedia or an "Insider's Guide to Yale." However, it is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be useful to the world at large, so I hope you will continue your efforts to try to produce content that is both reliably sourced and comprehensible to people who don't already know most of the subject matter of the article. Section headings like "Bonesy..." are still inappropriate for a general encyclopedia.
- Please note that boldface is supposed to be used only for the first occurrence of the name of the article. It should not be repeated throughout the article. I have removed the excessive boldface from the article.
- Currently, I am puzzled by the sentence "The undergraduate delegation meets regularly on Thursday and Sunday nights during the academic year" that appears at the end of the "Bonesy..." section. I don't think it belongs there -- and note that it needs a source.
- PS - Is there a reason why you are editing anonymously, instead of using your login? --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're bz
The Thursday Sunday meetings are a society tradition. I'll remove the sentence, but do me the solid of removing it from other like entries. I'm using a handmedown DELL laptop, and from it I cannot log in at Wikipedia; God knows, I hide little, so I sign my posts. When speaking about the societies, it takes help from editors like yourself to sustain content that might be useful to the general public. Keep up the good work.74.66.31.24 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)SLY111
- If it's known to be true, I'd be happy for the sentence to be in the article, albeit with some sort of a note about the need for a source. It's not exactly controversial.
- However, that doesn't answer the question of why it's in the "Bonesy" section of the article.
- Sorry to hear you can't log in from that laptop. I've edited a few times from IPs when I was using a borrowed computer, but only to do things like fix typos in articles I happened to look at, nothing substantial. Is it not possible for you to request your password? --Orlady (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, again
I type my password, and it's as if I did not depress the keys. After a few attempts, I ceased.74.66.31.24 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)SLY111
Miss, I've got a request
First, allow me to say that working with you and your peers is akin to working on the Yale Daily News, which I did with some success, therefore the opportunity with Wolf's Head.
What else would improve the entry?
I like this version, given your suggestions. I've spent time on the entry, and I'm gladdened that it reads now as less a f ck y u to the peer groups and more an appropriate sharing of the facts that did allow W.H.S. to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other two; it is indeed because the other two, and the groups that came afterward, might not exist without the obvious double and triple dealing for good and for ill that created the group, and that would had been a loss for Yale, the USA and what's called history, I suggest humbly.
And all the poppycock associated with the 41st and 43nd POTUS and their affiliation begged an improved description of Yale's society system. 74.66.31.24 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)SLY111
- I agree. The article is interesting, it appears to be well-sourced, and it looks like an encyclopedia article, not an insider's guide or an exposé. Hurray! As for improvement, I suggest that you work on getting sources for more of the past members -- and try to find reliable sources in lieu of dubious attributions like En.academic.ru. --Orlady (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your opening sentiment. The references for past members is a tough one, and I'm considering limiting that group to personalities with a bona fide, or reliable, reference.74.64.101.222 (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)SLY111
DYK for Tennessee Center for Policy Research
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Leuko Talk/Contribs 04:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Western Governors University
Hi Orlady, I have cleaned up some of the language on the WGU page and thought that it was adequate; but after reviewing today I did some additional editing that I think has helped it not sound so much like an advertisement. Please suggest what else could be done to give the article a NPOV, as I would like to appropriately dismiss the maintenance template. Thank you. Snavejar (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Windsor University School of Medicine
Hi there. I noticed you had a recent discussion with User:Leuko about edits to an article about a Caribbean medical school. I am having a similar dispute with him about Windsor and was wondering if you might have anything to contribute. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMD1 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Potsdam Sandstone
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Norbert Frýd
Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents
Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Wit's End
Hi Orlady, can you do me a small favor? Please look in at this page and tell me here (if and how) I could have handled it any better? I'm at my wit's end... this is only my third or fourth time as a third party and this debate was particularly troublesome. (I don't mind if you weigh in or not on the actual page, I'm asking for advice, not really help as I don't think it can constructively progress.) Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I had hoped you would reply here so as to keep our coversation a little less obvious. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Promin
Well done on the excellent edits to Promin! You rock! --Slashme (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You've been taken to ANI, but not warned...
So... here's the warning... hello by the way and I doubt anything will come of the complaint at all. Atomician (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is #Editor_problem. Thank you.ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
I brought you to ANI not to you get you blocked or anything like that. I brought it to ANI to find out how to handle the situation. I'm politely asking you to please end the discussion about my withdrawn nomination since the withdrawal should have ended it. Joe Chill (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- You can discuss things with me, I just asked for that DYK discussion to be ended. You seem to be looked highly upon by other editors which I respect. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Loved the nitpicky comments
You are cordially invited back to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel it going live is imminent and your earlier sugestion has been implemented. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Bertha Heyman
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Cuban Friendship Urn
thanks for the source, just filling in a red link of List of RHPs in DC (getting ready for wikimania next year). however i found a newspaper source that conflicts in detail. (left out the "most obscure" accolade) rewrite if you dissagree. Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for the nom (found a ref to "10 probably never heard of") the city paper has the local stories, cites sources (no wash post here) note, the park ranger may be mistaken. of course, now that we have gps on it, it's no longer obscure: the urban orienteering is easy. Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
My thanks
The Special Barnstar | ||
During disussions on the talk page for Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers you shared some wonderful insights that I was able to incorporate into the essay. I am grateful for your assistance and hope that WP:NewbieGuide will be of benefit to newcomers for years to come. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Orlady, I'm trying to kill off some of the more useless categories in the project. This one that was started about two years ago, but not much was done with it. I feel it is useless because... what does "local" mean? Local to New Haven is not local to Hartford or New London. How can having a cat for random politicians from all over the state make any sense, versus having them in their own (precise) categories? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Orlady!
I agree with your comments at the category page, and I thank you for your edits on the Carl Gershman page.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Manhattan Project
The Nuclear Barnstar | ||
For your contributions to the featured article candidacy of the Manhattan Project Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
DYK help thanks
Thanks for your work on Earl Best. It's in the DYK queue 6 for midnight tonight ... Trilliumz (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Earl Best
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Notability: Schools
There is currently a long and important thread on Jimbo's talk page that might be right up your (High) street. This may finally be the opportunity we are hoping for to get any ambiguities cleared up regarding any perceived interpretations of (non)notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Cuban Friendship Urn
Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Message added 18:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—mc10 (t/c) 18:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK nominations reviews
Hi,
I see that your an active reviewer of DYKs, would you mind taking a look at the two below. It would be much appreciated, not to worry if you can't. Thank you.
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Longford Trust
- Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Fitzgerald (barrister)
Kind regards,
DYK nominations reviews
Hi,
I see that your an active reviewer of DYKs, would you mind taking a look at the two below. It would be much appreciated, not to worry if you can't. Thank you.
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Longford Trust
- Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Fitzgerald (barrister)
Kind regards, --Ratio:Scripta · [ Talk ] 20:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
List of United States Cities by Population, the rank as page shows hides the true population denisty ranking
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population I believe the value of this page is that it allows one to find the population density of a city relative to all the rest in the nation, these figures are helpful in identifying relationships the of pollution, transit usage, and carbon footprint to density in Municipal Planning. I believe the list should be set to open with population density as the ranked figure, and if possible to have the the number rank related to the the figure for which teh list gets sorted, so that if I click the button to sort the cities by land area, it automatically states their relative rank to each other.. ex: when the list is sorted to 'pop density,' remarkably takes 17th place, but the rank numbers still relate this time out of sequence to 'total population.'
A page sort list that auto adjusts the rank, much like a typical database keeps the row numbers proper, even when you resort would be valuable to under grads and post grads, studying urban development, &/or city planning. I live in Berkeley, and we have a school within the university dedicated to urban planning.
Thank you for your time and consideration Moped45 (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your point about the value of a "by density" list for students of urban planning, but they aren't the typical encyclopedia user. List of United States cities by population is sorted by total population, just like the title indicates. It's a fully sortable table, so people interested in how the cities rank by other statistics can easily resort the list. --Orlady (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Glendale "University"
Hello Orlady,
I suppose we have been engaging in a debate of sorts regarding the Glendale University page over a few points regarding the accreditation of their company. I think it's fairly clear that you have some interest in representing them in the worst possible light in this respect, and I can't really fault you for that given what they do. I do think you are a bit too cavalier with the terms you are throwing around, though. For instance, to say that its accrediting company lacks "necessary" legal recognition implies that such recognition is somehow necessary. While certain states do have legislation that would make it necessary for a degree-granting entity to have legal recognition in order to lay claim to an accredited status (as is the situation in Canada where I live) this is not the case outside of these few exceptions across the country.
It just seems that the term "unaccredited" is not accurate since they are technically accredited (albeit by a baloney accreditation company). If I may infer as to your motives from the justifications used for your revisions, I would expect that your terminology is meant to indicate your low opinion of this company but has crossed the line into counter-factual claims. I would encourage you to incorporate the problems associated with the accreditation system in the United States in your treatment of the Glendale company rather than to gloss over the issue by simply labelling them as unaccredited. To be frank, it seems that the immediate problem is not that they are unaccredited but that they are not accredited by an unbiased accreditation agency or according to any kind of meaningful standard, and the larger problem is that regulations do not exist to legally differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate accreditation (government recommendations notwithstanding).
Anyway, I do realize that Wikipedia is a fairly fallacious source of information anyway (especially in light of my experience with this matter) but I thought I would try to make it a bit more accurate. You may now proceed to completely disregard my argument and continue to rule Wikipedia with an iron fist.
Denver - Radioactive contamination
As the section that you so-uncourteously deleted in its entirety was done without any discussion whatsoever, I have initiated a review of this dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, asking for independent reviews. Frankly, given all the data that was posted regarding the effectively permanent impacts on Denver -- again, Denver...with Rocky Flats being the source of the unquestioned plutonium problems -- I'm appalled at your actions given your administrator status. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S. This is just one of many data sources quoted in what you deleted in its entirety. Clearly, given that we are dealing with a radionuclide -- plutonium-239 -- with a 24,000 year half-life, comments on the impact on Denver are both encyclopedic and a public service. This is a very straightforward situation, and yet you have acted both wrongly and with a very clear POV yourself. I am very honestly shocked. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
WE have in turn been referred to the article's talk page to resovle the situation. In the spirit of good intentions, I ask that you undelete the article pending a public airing out of this issue. Needless to say, given the wide body of evidence regarding the impact of plutonium on Denver, your unilateral actions to delete the article outright were heavy-handed, and not what I'm used to seeing from a Wikipedia administrator. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)