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)
A question
Hey Orlady, would you have any objection to being nominated as an admin? Editors like you should have more tools at their disposal, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to suggest the same thing. Let me know if you're nominated, and I'll gladly give a strong-support. Bms4880 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I noticed this nomination and perhaps some preparation on your part to accept the nomination. I seldom participate in RFA discussions but do speak up in cases where i feel i have information that is important to share, as in a recent RFA for Wadester16. As a courtesy to you, I think i should inform you that if you go for RFA now I will speak up in opposition. I would be happy to discuss my reasons with you on- or off-line, and/or what might mitigate my concerns. You will do what you want, of course, but I don't want it to be a surprise to you if you go ahead and I do oppose. doncram (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I too will naturally oppose you after the extraordinary high-handed treatment you subjected me to. While you surely do some useful things around Wikipedia, you are too confrontative, and simply lack the communication skills that an administrator should possess. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Geronimo20: I didn't know you still held a grudge regarding Forage fish. I guess you feel that it was "extraordinarily high-handed" of me to put a "copy-paste" template on your article (in this diff) when there are other Wikipedians who would have requested speedy deletion as a copyvio. And I suppose it was personally offensive to you when I fixed spelling errors, removed content that was not supported by the reference cited, and did other cleanup edits on the article. And apparently you feel it was "high-handed" of me to point out that an article built from copypaste content was not ready for being featured on the main page in WP:DYK, to point out POV issues in the article, and then not to acquiesce to your requests[1] that I drop everything else in my life to rewrite your article so it would qualify for DYK. Sorry, but I happen to be more interested in ensuring quality and in following policies than in forming a fan club of other Wikipedians. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The tone of your response is precisely what I am referring to. At times, you are high-handed, excessively confrontative, you wildly exaggerate to the point of pure fantasy, and seem hell bent, relentlessly trying to damage your opponent in every way you can imagine. And opponent is the right word, since your dialogue is wholly polarised, allowing the other person no room from your side. Yes, under time pressure I forgot to copyedit the copyedit a news source had made of a late breaking news release. That was bad and dumb. So you had "got me", and I deserved to be rapped on the knuckles. But if I believed in the validity of the spin you put, even an accusation of plagiarism, I would, of course, walk away from Wikipedia and never edit again. Wikipedia will lose good editors if other editors, as savage and unreasonable as you can be, are to be made administrators. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm speechless. The history says that I deleted it but I couldn't even say when I've ever even been on that page, let alone had a desire to edit it. I'll do some research and see what was going on. Thanks for the notice. OlYellerTalktome 05:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think I figured it out. Someone had used the template to warn me about an article that was going into AfD. I had only made small changed to the article and didn't particularly care so I didn't want to clog my talk page up with the notice. I removed the notice (just the template not all the info as you can see [2]. Would removing that template from my talk page show up in the log for the template itself? I'm so confused. Please understand that my intentions were not to delete a whole template, just the text on my talk page that was created by the template. Do I not have permission to do that? I'm still newish so please help me understand if I'm doing something wrong so that I don't do it again. Thanks for your time. OlYellerTalktome 05:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Automated spelling fixes
Please be more careful with automated spelling changes scripts. In many cases, spellings may be proper names or acceptable variations or whatnot. For instance, this book title [3] should retain its actual spelling, and not be changed to the modern prefered one. Cheers, WilyD 11:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. I don't do automated spelling fixes, so that's an isolated event. --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in removing too much cruft. Please discuss major changes like that on the talk page. I'm going to re-insert the cited matters. They may not be on-line for free. Because they are cited, available for a fee, reliable, and relevant, they should go back in. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
RfA
I think we need to get this RfA moving. Let me know as soon as you've been able to answer the remaining questions so that I can post it to the list. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm going to be offline from tomorrow until Sunday since I have to travel to a funeral. If you don't get a chance to finished the RfA questions before I leave, feel free to post the RfA yourself. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Your nomination
Hey Orlady, your hair looks nice today! [ ;-) this joke is going to be explained further down, it is to make sure you read it all ;-) ] Sorry for disturbing your nomination page prematurely. The nomination page is linked from your talk page and it looked like the voting has already started. Especially as there were votes present already. My concern was not only the two unanswered questions in a process that looked ongoing to me, I also mentioned one single and defined issue regarding your proposed adminship, which is your way to deal with some conflicts with a few certain users which sometimes leads to user blocks, I think that is a relevant issue to raise when a new admin is appointed. We have discussed this recently about that MagdaSoandSo sockpuppet, where I could not see any destructive edits by that very user MagdaSoandSo, but that user is still blocked. Well, after that and after I saw that you were nominated, I looked through some of your old talk contributions. Congratulations to your nomination, by the way, not sure if I said that already. I think you're going to make it easily.
I just want to state here what I noticed and try to describe it without bias. Keep in mind that I did not study all the talk, so I might have missed something and might be wrong. In this case, just ignore it. (1) Those conflicts that got out of hand were all "much ado about nothing". One unfriendly word leads to the next. As mentioned at another place all that taking place in the edit summaries. Looking at your responses in these conflicts I miss the calming element in the speech. Just by using different words in the first approach or responses you could easily bring the conflict back to a matter-of-fact level and address the problem. When it becomes personal, the problem does not get solved. And sometime it does not hurt to say "sorry", either. (2) Don't take this personal, it might just be due to your personal style and the limited characters in the edit summary. You often address a criticism in the edit summary in too few words, using Wiki abbreviations. Some of the users whom you had or have conflicts with stated that they found your comments arrogant or something to that tune. Sometimes you sound like a 100 year old retired never-married history teacher (and I really hope you aren't one). What I found you could improve easily, use the talk page instead of the edit summary and start all your critical comments with a friendly sentence, the harsher the criticism is going to be the more friendly a first sentence I recommend. You could try to find something friendly in the user history or in articles the user created. Starting it positive would give the talk a whole new friendly basis on which the fact issues can be addressed effectively. You can always also add something friendly of your choice at the end, too. (3) I might be wrong here but I noticed a few gaps in the MagdaSoandSo and other users investigation. This might point to communication related to a topic but discussed in private channels. Maybe not, there might be another reason. I think an admins communication should be even more tracable than any other users. As well as myself you also have the bad habit of scattering out your talk and to answer a question raised on your talk page on the users talk page, but then, question and answer get separated and if someone wants to find out how some conflict developed, you would have real trouble to find your way from the start to the beginning. As I said, I have the same habit and everytime I see how Huntster does it ... well, that keeps the discussion together.
Hey, I hope you did not find anything of the above offensive, it would not be meant that way. And as it looks further up your talk page you will have to take some stance here anyway. Maybe you can derive some idea from the above to develop your communication skills in a positive direction. You have enough knowledge about Wikipedia and the policies and style regulations already to be a good admin. With some fine tuning in the right direction you could become a great admin even. Take care and good luck, doxTxob \ talk 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Unincorporated area,
however, the fact that large swatchs of land are under trust makes the distinction between unincorporated status and incorporated status completely irrelevant. These lands are empty, or used solely for cattle, deer, National Parks, and *maybe* timber. It is not as if these lands have lots of people but no incorporation, which would more the model of other nations.Scientes (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
A useful addition?
Just wanted to ask if you think this is a useful addition to the article or not. I was testing the new charting capabilities in Google Spreadsheet and that was the result :) Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Coloradan or Coloradoan?
The United States Government Printing Office officially says that a resident of the State of Colorado should be described as a Coloradoan. Colorado State Government says that the term Coloradoan is antiquated and that residents of the state should be described as Coloradans. --Buaidh (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
invitation
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Just checking in
Hope things are OK with your family emergency. Just drop me a note when you get back. Best wishes. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Your multiple speedy deletion requests
Please stop putting up New Rochelle area articles for Speedy deletion. I have removed three of your deletion notices. I will review your editing contributions to identify others you have nominated that way in order to delete those requests. The speedy deletion process is for obvious cases; I assert that all of these are not obvious cases. If you continue in this way I would have the opinion that you are violating wikipedia policy about disrupting the wikipedia, perhaps wp:pointy would be relevant. It may be a gray area and I am not inclined to open an ANI incident report about your actions, although I think a case could be made for that if you continue.
Go ahead and put them up for AfD if you think for some reason that you must. I expect that I will argue against them in that forum. I would appreciate the courtesy of a notice to my Talk page if I do not respond promptly to an AfD, as I may not have all New Rochelle area articles on my watchlist. doncram (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Neptune Island
A random sampling of the sources finds that 100% of them check out. Small sample size or not, there's no reason to vindictively delete an article with no plausible alledged flaws. If you're unsatisfied, there's always tardy deletion. WilyD 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- For cases that require extensive investigation, there's always tardy deletion. "Could be problematic, though I have no real evidence to this effect" is not a strong enough argument for speedy deletion. WilyD 20:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Changes
Thanks for catching my incorrect choice of words, I had been up all night and wasn't thinking. However, the list of carefully chosen website links seems to fall under this rule. A carefully chose quantity controlled list, which is what this is. Again, I appreciate the title fix, and I don't know what I was thinking with the bold type, but I do feel the links should be left as is. Sincerely, speednat (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure who is right as I can see it is written both ways, and for every example of one way I am sure there is another the other way. Please don't take me the wrong way, I just feel that this is a strictly controlled list, where if one changed it to a list of external links that is just changing for the sake of changing. The links are going to be there (I think we can agree on that), just where. speednat (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
First let me preface what I am going to say with, you obviously have your mind made up as to how "the way to do it is", and nothing I say will change your mind. "Almost" everything I have read states that there are NO hard fast rules merely guidelines. Now with that said lets revisit a few points, first you showed me articles, I was merely counterpointing to your this is how it is done, so don't act like that was my argument. Second, quoting rule 3.2 from this
3.2 Links to be considered
A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the [Template: dmoz] template.
1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. 2. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. 3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the [Template: dmoz] template. 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
Pay close attention to Links to be considered. Also your rule that you quoted with the convenient word left out, let us revisit it. 1.2
External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox
Again pay close attention to "normally", meaning there are exceptions.
Finally, It is pretty apparent, that when the article is titled List of state ornithological organizations, and then the states are listed, that the HL probably will take you there.
I am not sure what your motive is here, if it is to force your opinions on others, or is it to come to an agreement, because your tactless typing, and your veiled insults to my ignorance( now that you are no longer a new member, it is time to get acquainted with policies) sure aren't meant to work a solution. I mean every other user that corrected me and then I thanked them responded with a no problem or a happy remark of some sort, what do you respond with when I thank you for catching my mistakes...nothing other than more rips on my style.
If you want to change it, I can't stop you, but these same polices point out to be nice, play nice, get consensus. I just can't help but think by your attitude that you have a vendetta against me. I have been nice, no overly nice to this point, and again, don't take this the wrong way, but my hackles are up with our conversation. speednat (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
unban proposal and topic ban request
I opened an Unban request, which also includes a topic ban request on yourself, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady. Please see. doncram (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The Barringtons
FYI, I made the following changes you may wish to look at (and mercilessly edit as you think fit):
- University of Atlanta: added a new section, "Barrington University", with the school's history.
- Created the redirect, Barrington University.
- Added a disambiguation notice to Barrington College, pointing to the University of Atlanta article.
- Added both Barrington College and the University of Atlanta to the list of things named Barrington at Barrington.
- Added a disambiguation notice for Barrington College to the top of the University of Atlanta's Barrington University section, not the top of the article. That location is not entirely kosher, but it seems to make more sense there.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
2 DMOZ editors blocked here for spamming their own sites
Interesting. I recently come across two different accounts blocked by others for spamming where the spammers said they were also DMOZ editors:
- Glasgowmods -- see comments at User talk:Beetstra#GlasgowMods - The Mod Generation
- Bikerfan547
I wonder if their conflicts of interest here also show up in their DMOZ editing?
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- Also, thanks for your help with University of Atlanta. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Orlady, many thanks for your input on this matter which i really appreciate. I would certainly accept any decision based on the contents of the website, although i do feel, as it is in fact documenting aspects of the mod subculture, The Mod Generation[4] would certainly add value to the article. If the matter could be reviewed I feel sure The Mod Generation could suitably be placed alongside the other links already in place. In any case, it is at least of some comfort that the site is not considered spam! A.B. you are very welcome to check the links i have added on DMOZ [5] where my interests are declared (perhaps you could have done so first before referring to me as a spammer)
- On the subject of the Open Directory Project, i mentioned that i edit the Modernist subcategory (as 'troublewithid')in Society/Subcultures[6] - i have asked for this to be renamed 'Mod' or perhaps 'Mods' which is more likely to be used as a search term and would tie in with the title of the article in Wikipedia. I have made a requests through the boards. If you can help with this i would again be grateful!
- Glasgowmods 14.30, 31 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC).
Hello Orlady. Thank you for your comments at Talk:International Parliament for Safety and Peace and your improvements to the article. They were very helpful. I have changed the article and explained my edits on the talk page. I hope that you find time to contribute to the discussion at the talk page and/or the article itself. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
New Rochelle discussion notice
New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.
This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.
This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users
I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are mentioned as an involved party and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Images of New Rochelle train station
Sockpuppet or not, it looks like a decent image to me. Can you be 100% sure that File:NRTrainStationInside.JPG is a copyvio? I've taken pictures of locations that are similar to those taken by other people in the past before. I'm pretty sure my main image of Montauk (LIRR station) isn't the first one from this angle. As for File:NewRochelleTicketBook.JPG, I don't think this is from 1921 either. I think it's older. The only thing I suppose you can do is find somebody with a copy of that ticket book, an check for the exact year. The one thing I dispute about them, however, is whether any of them should be categorized as being on the National Register of Historic Places. ----DanTD (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Off-peak hours can always be good times to shoot station interiors with no people. Also, have you ever seen the interior of East Hampton (LIRR station). I went there on May 11, 2008, and that place was pretty barren. I had the impression that it since it was opened only on Sunday I was going to be able to buy a ticket there and take the train to Montauk, but that wasn't the case. I'm not saying you couldn't be right, I'm just considering that there might be other possiblities. ----DanTD (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- My speculation that it might be older than 1921 comes from old LIRR paperwork, as seen here(http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/images/lirrpasses.htm). Some of the stuff from Arrt's Arrchives look to be around the same age and older. ----DanTD (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I honestly hope that you're wrong, because they look kind of nice, even the one you want to delete. I've looked at the links you showed me, and so far, I haven't seen any evidence of similarity to the ones that were posted. One shot of the ITC that I saw looked like it might've been from I-95, but that was it. Tell me something; Does this image look fuzzy to you at all? Because I shot it from an unconventional angle(the top of a platform shelter next to either a staircase or a ramp), and I had people staring at me as I did it, which I didn't really expect from New Yorkers, but I didn't let that stop me from taking it. ----DanTD (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, the ticket book can't be older than 1916, which was when the New York Connecting Railroad opened and gave the New Haven access to "Pennsylvania Station". In fact, looking at some examples on eBay, a 1913 commutation ticket used an older "script" logo, while the logo on the image in dispute appears on a 1928 commutation ticket. I suspect that the ticket book is, in fact, post-1921. Have you considered soliciting Durova's opinion about the station image? She does a lot of image restoration and she could probably confirm that the station image was scanned. Choess (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Ghosts
Aren't you on Wikibreak? I get more and more tired of your "assumtions". Regarding the arbitration of your "case" that is probably going to be rejected, I must must say that there is one good thing coming out of that procedure. User:Carcharoth stated that he would reject the request but mentioned that "it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master" and that "it is common to become too easily persuaded that new accounts are socks, and eventually there will be collateral damage ...". What a wise guy! Orlady, you cause more damage to Wikipedia than good if you continue your quest. Is that what your intention is? Let your case rest, there are a million other more important things to do on Wikipedia than your hunt to catch the ghosts that follow you at night. doxTxob \ talk 02:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Suffield University
I'm sure we would agree that Suffield University is clearly a diploma mill and there is some evidence to that end provided in the article. However, the page reads like targeted activism and clearly needs to take a less biased tone to sound anything like an encyclopedia entry. In addition, I requested a 5 day delete so that someone would respond to the previous requests to clean it up. I think it is irresponsible to delete not only my request but the request of someone else to clean it up. So now the article is just stick as a substandard stub as you continue to delete any requests for improvement. Furthermore, your message that I am starting an "edit war" is incorrect and I feel shows your intolerance for dissenting opinions. Clearly, I am not the only one who feels this as I read other comments made about your heavy handed edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumblebee (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
RfA
I swear, you are the hardest person to make an admin ;) Are you still planning on completing your application or should I scrap it? FWIW, I think your existing responses are probably adequate. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck. It's been a pleasure working with you thus far, and hopefully the RFA will continue in its current vein. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Things were so much easier in the old days ;) Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)