7 February 2025
Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians News and notes: Let's talk! Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon In the media: Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed Traffic report: A wild drive
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

1 - Talk from 1 December 2006 to 1 July 2007 2 - Talk from 2 July 2007 to 22 February 2008 3 - Talk from 23 February 2008 to ~8 June 2008 4 - Talk from 10 June 2008 to 1 December 2008 5 - Talk from 2 December 2008 to 1 March 2009 6 - Talk from March to April 2009 7 - Talk from May 2009 to early August 2009 8 - Talk from August 2009 to early October 2009 9 - Talk from October to December 2009 10 - Talk from January to March 2010 11 - Talk from April to July 2010 12 - Talk from August 2010 to ....

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)[reply]

Orlady, can you please take a look at my new and improved article, User:Pchittg1/George M. Davis Elementary. I hope you like it! Pchittg1 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Harwich does not exist. Thats why i continue to change it. Even Go To The Town Of Harwich's website and find no village or zipcode under Northwest Harwich. West Harwich is its own CDP, village and zipcode. North Harwich is its own village but it falls under Harwich Center zipcode and CDP along with Pleasant Lake. Im sorry but i think your wrong. --Editermaster12345 (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that West Harwich is a census designated place, but the U.S. Census does not. We have to rely on sources, and the U.S. Census is as reliable as it gets when the topic is the Census. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look i agreed with you for a while now but since you acuused me of "Sock Puppeting" I am definally going back to the subject. What about the US postal service they arent counted? What about Town documents they arent reliable? Just think to yourself, "How could that be possible"?--Editermaster12345 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to hear your opinion on a situation. Some days ago, Person A uploaded two images, identical except that one was a scaled-down version of the other. Person B discovered this situation and tagged the larger one for F1 speedy deletion. I discovered this while going through CAT:CSD; since I understand F1 to say that only smaller or identical-size images may be deleted under this criterion, I deleted the smaller one and declined the speedy on the larger one. Today, I found that Fastily had made a substantial objection to my action. Do you think that I was wrong to perform this action? Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting my slip there! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady, I noticed you changed the category of IACBE from [[Category:Unrecognized accreditation associations]] to [[Category:School accreditors]] . Why did you do this? As it states in the article, The IACBE is not recognized by U.S. education authorities as a higher education accreditor.

This could change very soon. The CHEA committee on recognition is holding a public meeting in six hours to submit a recommendation to the CHEA board of directors on whether this org. should be recognized (The BOD will decide on whether or not to follow this recommendation on January 22nd). Unless you have a better time machine than me (which I seriously doubt) I don't know how you could know what the committee is going to suggest. I have reverted your change so that all meeting attendees can see the most accurate information. JamaUtil (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mistake. I was doing some cleanup of a list-article in the wake of some mass-production edits done by another user, and I misread the IACBE article. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orlady, I respect your position as a Wikipedia Administrator, however I am surprised that you seem to be going out of your way to surpress and seemingly minimize IACBE's recent CHEA recognition. You seem to be promoting ACBSP and specifically mentioning that IACBE was not recognized by CHEA for many years why the apparent attack? I also noticed that you deleted my reference to AACSB the most respected of business school program accreditation agencies, is their recognition not yet confirmed by a 3rd party? I do apologize for adding my accurate comments (do you think that the IACBE would publish something as significant as this if it was not confirmed at this point?) to your existing citation and honestly hope that my suspicions are unwarranted but your wording in the article doesn't seem objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardo111 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC) (Cardo111 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If I have been "going out of my way," my goal was to prevent you from misrepresenting the contents of the sources cited in the IACBE article. I don't doubt that CHEA voted yesterday to recognize IACBE, but that does not justify revising the article to remove the history of what happened before yesterday, nor to claim that since last May IACBE has been on a CHEA list that did not include IACBE either last May or today. Wikipedia is not a publishing outlet for breaking news; we need to wait for some other third party to announce this before it can be reported as verified truth. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IACBE is now a CHEA recognised organization. See this link - http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp#assembly. Auditguy (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same thing as "Tennessee marble," or is Tennessee marble part of this formation? I was writing an article for Tennessee marble, but I'm wondering if I just expand the Holston Formation article instead. Bms4880 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady, thanks for finishing off what I started on Crissal Thrasher and making it a lot more readable into the bargain; it's an interesting bird that deserved its place on the main page I think. I know that it's not ideal to have the reviewers sorting out all the article's problems, but I find that with some nominations I reach the stage where I'm determined to get it through the process. Not sure what happened to Joe Chill, he was very active around DYK for a while. Mikenorton (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does on use a text in a way that is accurate but not paraphrasing? I'd be interested to see how you'd approach it - perhaps you could copy edit the text to remove a copyright violation without either (a) deleting the information or (b) writing something that's inaccurate or made up. --Merbabu (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this edit, which is now at T:DYK/Q5, I removed the space from "SummerSlam" after a WP:ERRORS complaint, because the space doesn't appear in their logo here or in their webpage here. Art LaPella (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me the idea of starting Cambridge Modern History when I found it wasn't there, but I have realized I don't know how to put a new article title into italics; if you do, could you please let me know? Thanks, Moonraker2 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just add {{Italic title}} (include the brackets) to the top of the page. Further instructions are at Template:Italic title, covering how to use partial italics in the titles. - BilCat (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady. Would you be able to look at the First Battle of Yeonpyeong DYK nomination and comment on the sourcing/citation question? Someone approved the hook but I took a look at the article and noticed that 6 of the 8 paragraphs were uncited, so I un-approved it. A third set of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		I see this is rather overdue, as you are well past 25, but congratulations are in order on all your DYKs, ranging from Cornish jack to Stroke Belt, where so many labors are undertaken. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning-How are you doing? If you have the time would you please look at the Southern College of Optometry, in Memphis, Tennessee. I was working on an article about a Kansas legislator James Morrison (Kansas politician) who just died and Morrison graduated from the school. The article about the school may need to be edited. Also my congratulations on your DYK article about the Oak Ridge gatehouses. Very interesting! Thank you as always-RFD (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The return of Gnative; when you have the time perhaps take a look to see if the most recent additions are credible edits and article creations [1]. Given the history I'm dubious, but not an expert. Very best, JNW (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one undo and so much reaction, it was not expected. May be some other has made the same choice as I did. May be there are many like minded. But that does not bring any conclusion, like puppet or else!! If u r on the correct path from the core of your heart, just carry on. And another thing, capacity to threat is necessary but it must be within good control, should not be used under the influence of temperament. That I said not as a personal comment, but as a universal rule.Shoovrow (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to think it's just a coincidence when there are 4 identical unconstructive edits in less than 32 hours -- including one made by you and one made by an IP that you later acknowledged was you, all supported by similar arguments in edit summaries and on the talk page? Sorry, but the most logical explanation for this is that, once again, you (or the operator of Bircham International University) are orchestrating an effort to remove negative information from the article. Wikipedia and I are running out of patience. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that u have due logic in your view. But your interpretation about me just is not correct. I cant comment on others. Best of luck!Shoovrow (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orlady,

Thanks for your patient edits, I have much yet to learn.

The first being, when I respond to your comments on my Talk page, do I edit your comments on My Talk page or on yours? or does it matter? (I have now done both. I hope not improperly.

I now understand about bare URL's and will attempt to revise those I've added to be proper web citations.

Regarding neutrality: I think I can see from your perspective and have rewritten what I had been quoting about the Univ. of the Nations from a recent State of Hawaii Governors Proclamation. I have reduced the text even more and would ask if you think it is now acceptably neutral:

(can a clause addressing motive or WHY be included? such as:

The University of the Nations was founded in 1978 to train students from all the world to go to every nation by serving every sphere of society with the love of God, and providing practical aid to help a hurting world.

(I was also confused when, apparently you accepted their updated stats on number of campuses and number of countries, but then re-inserted their former number (50) of languages that courses were offered in. I had submitted the clause:

Under the umbrella organization of Youth With A Mission (YWAM), the University of the Nations is a global university with 600 campuses in 142 countries offering courses in more than 100 languages.

I had also submitted the following clause from the above mentioned state document, which was eliminated in the edit. I see student enrollment mentioned in a number of other university articles and am unclear how this is non-neutral.

"Its first branch, the Kailua-Kona campus, has 2,000 students enrolled per year and approximately 500 full-time staff and faculty."

While I had nothing to do with creating the content of the document, I heard it read at a public meeting Nov. 29th by our State Representative and took a readable, but not especially good, photo of the document. While the actual document will be posted on the Hawaii State.gov site at some point, they appear to be currently running about 4 months behind in posting documents online. Is it appropriate in the mean time to add this photographed document as a Wiki-file (with proper citations) and then use it as a source?

Best regards,

Konaallan (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)] Konaallan[reply]

Please check your emails. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to notify original editor when you PROD. I just got my head taken off because I sent the notice shortly before deleting.--SPhilbrickT 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all notable enough for their own articles, I'd suggest starting the articles instead of edit warring over the list, nicht wahr? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "list of American orchestras with entries in the Wikipedia." So please create the articles first. Dlabtot (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did create one of those articles, but it seems that I've gotten you orchestra folks so upset that you felt it necessary to delete the bluelink along with the redlinks and reference citations. I guess it's best for me to stay away from that list. FWIW, below is the comment I posted on SarekOfVulcan's user page. --Orlady (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I have offended with my edits to List of symphony orchestras in the United States. After addressing some self-interested editing at Music of Colorado, I looked into the related articles, and was alarmed to discover that Music of Tennessee didn't so much as mention the existence of classical music. I looked around to see what articles existed on the subject that could be used as resources (discovering, among other things, that the topic of classical music is absent from Category:Music of Tennessee) and found List of symphony orchestras in the United States, which listed a grand total of two orchestras in the state. Since that seemed to be the most comprehensive article on classical music in Tennessee, it looked to me like adding to that list would be a good quick way to start to document the existence of orchestras in the state (much easier than figuring out how to weave them into an article whose lead sentence says "The story of Tennessee's contribution to American music is essentially the story of three cities: Nashville, Memphis, and Bristol").

When I see a warning that says "When editing this list bear in mind that the same notability criteria apply here as elsewhere in Wikipedia: entries with no independent sources listed either here or in other Wikipedia articles may not be notable, and are likely to be removed", I interpret that to mean "cite independent sources," not DON"T LIST ANYTHING HERE UNTIL THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN CREATED. Accordingly, after having to leave my computer after adding several unsourced orchestras, I wasn't surprised to see that my unsourced additions were removed, so I calmly restored them, with my reference citations. I had no idea that my attempt to expand this topic would be so upsetting to others. I have no particular interest in the subject, but it looks to me like refusal to allow redlinks on lists (coupled with the youthfulness of most Wikipedia contributors) is stunting its growth. --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that very stupid. It said in history I only did the one from six weeks ago. I'll be careful. So why did you delete Tree City USA? How would you know when you're from Tennessee? Joseph507357 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello orlady, I just noticed your presence here at Wikipedia where I joined as an editor in October. Your name is familiar to me from the ODP. My editor name there lacks the first three letters of the name I use here. I am enjoying creating articles and expanding stubs, mostly about species of animals, and am finding it more fulfilling than editing with the ODP.

So, season's greetings and a happy new year! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orlady. I notice you're the admin who promoted this article for DYK on 13 December. At present there is an open thread at WP:AE#Jalapenos do exist claiming a violation of WP:ARBPIA due to Jalapenos behavior on this article. (He is said to have made POV edits to the article after its DYK was on the main page). I am not asking you to involve yourself in that thread, but I wonder if you see any general problems at DYK due to submission of controversial artices, in particular those related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Do you recall any concerns you may have had yourself about this specific article? I assume that the judgment of what to promote is mostly in the hands of the reviewers. At present I'm not convinced that Jalapenos misbehaved to the point of needing the attention of AE, but I'm still doing a bit of investigating. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Census_Bureau#New_FactFinder_Might_Break_Links_In_Wikipedia.3F • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your developing this article. After my own first edit or two i myself wondered if Mansfield Training School and Hospital was properly described as a psychiatric hospital or not (as was indicated in the pre-existing article), and am glad u pursued development far enough to correct that. As well as simply to greatly improve the article. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Doncram's put up an idea here [[2]], please weigh in if you have an opinion on the matter. I'd really like to see this handed by talking instead of lots of messy reverts like we've seen in the past. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, I'm thinking that perhaps the Preston_University,_Pakistan article should be deleted? Here's the reason I have this thought. It seems to primarily be a duplicate of the Preston University article. It seems to be nothing more than an advertisement for the Pakistani branch of Preston University. It is not well sourced. If you agree with the general assessment then perhaps you could give me some suggestions as to the likely best way to go about this? Looking at the wp:Deletion guideline article it seems that there are many different choices for the different processes and I don't know which one should be used? I appreciate any help opinion or suggestions that you might have. Zugman (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Heritage University Of Southern California? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, many of the news jingle companies that produced early news themes are no longer in business, although some of them are (Score Productions, 615 Music, for example). Mayoham Music, the originator of the "Move Closer to Your World" theme, and also the popular "Part of Your Life" theme is one of those no longer in business. Southern Media, in my opinion, is the only source of news theme information in the broadcast industry today, having heard many of the themes it credits to stations myself, on the stations themselves. (most of its content is submitted by ex-employees of the stations themselves that have supplied the older news packages to Southern Media). After checking Wikipedia's Identifying Reliable Sources, it is my opinion that Southern Media fits the criteria to be considered a credible source; however I cannot make that decision for Wikipedia.

But, as you say, since there is no verifiable source for TV stations' former theme music packages, I suggest deleting all of the ones that are listed in TV station articles, except for the music packages that are currently airing.

I can do this, although it will take a while. There are hundreds of TV station entries on Wikipedia that list past theme music. Current theme music would be exempt, as all one has to do is click on stations' websites to hear the current theme.

At the risk of sounding like I am promoting the station or the article I wrote on WATE-TV (which I am not), I worked at WATE-TV from 1976 to 1984 as a news reporter-anchor, and know for a fact that WATE had the "Move Closer to Your World" package and that WBIR-TV did not. I have WATE-TV's 1978 6 PM news open on videotape that mentions the station's news team under the "Move Closer to Your World" 6 o'clock main music theme, but I would never ask anybody to believe what they hear.70.145.65.11 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You are saying that SouthernMedia is a reliable source regarding stations' past theme music, but you are saying that there are no reliable sources for information on stations' past theme music... --Orlady (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, too much Christmas egg nog LOL! What I meant to say was (as far as I know), Southern Media is the only reliable source of past TV station newscast theme music around, because of how it is submitted. It is submitted to the website by past or present employees (past or present station promotions personnel, past or present newsroom employees, past or present TV station production people, etc... people who were very close to the newscasts on the air and have access to old videotapes of news opens. In itself, that makes Southern Media extremely reliable for past newscast theme packages.

An example of this is the TV newscast open for WGR-TV, Buffalo, and WMAL-TV, Washington.. their two separate variations of Mayoham's "Part of Your Life" news theme package are listed with Southern Media.. But if you listen to the "Part of Your Life" TV newscast theme for WSM-TV, Nashville; WTVC, Chattanooga; or WBTV, Charlotte, those three are all the same, but still different from WGR and WMAL.

PRESENT TV newscast theme packages are available from the companies themselves, the stations themselves, or simply taping them off the air.

Other than Southern Media, to my knowledge, there are no other sources that collect PAST TV newscast theme music packages because the music companies no longer exist, and many TV stations no longer have those music packages on hand (I have fortunate enough to have all of the ones from the stations that I worked for, and their competitors in the same town), plus a few others from cities I have visited).Csneed (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Milky Way Farm 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! 97198 (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, we have a problem with the List of tallest buildings in Knoxville. The article creator used Emporis as a source, and while it's a valid source, there are clearly some omissions (I can safely say 517 West Jackson is NOT #10, and probably not in the top 20). As far as I know, there is no accurate source for the tallest buildings in the city (except the top 3), but I would like to somehow save the list. Some possibilities are to move it to "List of high-rises in Knoxville" and eliminate the ascending order, or list them strictly by number of stories (rather than feet/meters), and add a sidenote for the Sunsphere. Any suggestions? Bms4880 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your snarkiness[3] is duly noted and not appreciated. See WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not giving ANY reason how the John Rice Irwin article is a start class. I did not create the article, I expanded it. Where on Wikipedia does it say I can't asses an article that I expanded. It obviously is higher than start-class. ::::

WikiProject Biography

• C-class

• The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material.
• The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
• The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class.
• It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research.

• Start-class

• An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
• The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing.
• Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability.
• No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

Opinion doesn't matter on Wikipedia. It obviously is above start-class, if not above c-class. CrowzRSA 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orlady! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project and please let me know if you haev any comments, questions or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a stub about William Fones. He served on the Tennessee Supreme Court. I came across his name in the deaths for December 2010 section. Otherwise, the redlink would be deleted within a month after his death. Please expand if possible. Thank you-RFD (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You talked me into it. Sigh... --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. You probably have more access to sources in Tennessee. RFD (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this article John Oestreicher (Wisconsin politician); his obituary appeared today and he served in the Wisconsin State Assembly. Again, my thanks for helping out with the Fones article. RFD (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wiki-article Victuallers (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming here

I agree with you that the short forms are as you write. Unfortunately they cannot be used as category names since they are ambiguous - several provinces are named after towns, or the names are found in other countries. The full proper names include the word "provincia" in Spanish. Full names in Spanish are thus "Provincia de Las Palmas", "Provincia de Lleida".

The Wikipedia naming convention for Spanish language province categories is to use the long form with "Province" appended: Category:Provinces of Argentina, Category:Provinces of Bolivia, Category:Provinces of Chile, Category:Provinces of Colombia, Category:Provinces of Gran Colombia, Category:Provinces of Costa Rica, Category:Provinces of Cuba, Category:Provinces of the Dominican Republic, Category:Provinces of Ecuador, Category:Provinces of Equatorial Guinea, Category:Provinces of Panama, (no categories within Category:Provinces of Peru, Category:Provinces of the Spanish Empire), Category:Provinces of Venezuela.

The same Wikipedia naming convention for linguistically and/or geographically related Portuguese language items apply to Category:Provinces of Portugal, Category:Provinces of Angola, Category:Provinces of Mozambique. The only ones that inconsistently use lower case "province" are the ones from Spain listed here. C2C. Could you have a second look? TopoChecker (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at WP:CFD. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is only fair that we refer to Basil Marceaux as BasilMarceaux.com, he claimed in the video that it was his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a joke at his expense. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your deletion of a disambiguation page that i had created, in

(Deletion log); 15:20 . . Orlady (talk | contribs) deleted "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)" (G6: Deleted to make way for move)

this deletion log edit. Your assertion in edit summary that it met G6 criteria for a noncontroversial deletion is invalid. Obviously from discussion at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), there is going to be disagreement. So, your use of administrative tools to do that seems like a minor abuse. Please don't do that again.

I'll grant that i could have opened a Requested Move request myself, rather than making the move and creating the dab page that you have reversed. But i thot you wanted disambiguation and guessed wrong.

About remedying this case, would you please restore the disambiguation page or provide a copy to me, and i will start a multiple requested move process eventually. I don't have access to the deleted page. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your evisceration of the article Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) and creation of a disambiguation page in its place was totally out of line. That's why I reverted it. Disambiguation pages exist to help users navigate when names are ambiguous, not to document that there are three NRHP listings at that site in Franklin that is known as "Old Town." --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for alerting me to the need to restore the page history. I've done that. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do follow through. If u did provide a copy to some subpage of mine, i have to be told where, it can't be on my watchlist. --Doncram (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the page history before I posted above to say that I had done so. All of your edits are there. --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you somehow inserted a copy of the dab page into the "history" of the page that is now at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee). It is not how it ever was; the dab page was a separate page and i did not ever eliminate the substance of the article about the mounds and village and archeological site, though anyone reviewing it might now think so. I had created a separate dab page, and there was a Talk page associated with it, which you moved elsewhere, to "Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) (disambiguation)", i believe along with moving the disambiguation page to "Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee (disambiguation)", before you deleted it. Now another administrator has just seen fit to speedily delete that as a Talk page for a deleted page. Is that what you intended or expected would happen? What actually happened and what was discussed between you and me is now garbled and/or unavailable, and this undermines understanding for a requested move that would set things right. --Doncram (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "insert a copy of the disambiguation page" -- because that content was created at that page title, it is part of the page history for the page. I simply restored the edits that got deleted during the page move process. Other pages that have been repeatedly moved and unmoved have similar oddities in their page histories. I never moved the disambiguation page to a different title.
As for the deleted talk page, I've restored it and moved it -- it is now at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)/disambiguation, where it should no longer be in danger of getting deleted by an overly efficient administrator. I saved it in the first place because I was aware that you would want to preserve the history. I expect that you will want to add comments at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) and Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee)/disambiguation to document the entire history of who did what, when they did it, and possibly which of my numerous personality defects all this relates to. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The disambiguation page was never in the edit history of the page that was at Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) then was moved away (with its Talk page), then was moved back (with its Talk page). Not until u inserted the dab page into that page's edit history. I gather u deleted the disambiguation page first before the move back. Then it seems odd to have moved the Talk page to where u did. But okay, thanks for restoring the talk page and its edit history. About the rest, i'll try to get right on it! :) --Doncram (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, nice to know that I don't have to follow the WP:RM process for Doncram's benefit anymore. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well i'll use RM and i hope everyone else will. I think Orlady coulda disagreed with my boldish move, and moved the dab page to a name with "(disambiguation)" appended (that she obviously considered because she did that for the Talk), and left it for me to open a Requested Move. Or if she could not have done that because of prior moves, then i should have been chastised for not using RM to start. But what this little thread was about was use of admin tools in a way that happened to be to one's advantage in a disagreement. --Doncram (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I have resolved the Willis Churchill (Hamden)/Charles Churchill (UK manufacturer, Churchill Machine Tool Company) father-son relationship without having to break WP:SYN. I'm very grateful for your help with this. I think that I may yet create an article for Willis, even though it may never advance much further than a stub. Certainly, I think that he deserves a mention on the Hamden page, and possibly Charles also as a "significant son" of the place. So significant that none of its inhabitants have probably heard of him! <g> Sitush (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the comments and for the corrections to my appalling knowledge of US naming customs! I should know better, having studied US history at Cambridge University with some rather good, if slightly doped-up, West Coast professors etc. As long as we agree to differ on the colour/color/recognise/recognize type of spelling and the "write John"/"write to John", I'm pleased to have you on board :) Sitush (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dougweller has asked a couple of the former regulars at the Warnborough article to comment on this most recent request.Talk:Warnborough_College#Edit_request_from_Jon-mingle.2C_10_January_2011. Don't know if that's something you'd care to weigh in on or not. Fladrif (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As always thank you again-RFD (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks very much for the DYK nomination for Churchill Machine Tool Company. I've been reading around the entire process and am, frankly, amazed. Some people are putting a lot of work into that.

Now for the comeback! I think that I have a bit of a problem with my citations. Actually, there are several but the one that is bugging me is that I have been referring to a particular source umpteen times in the article and the reflist is expanding rapidly because of this. Someone did fix another instance of this sort of thing for me but I can't seem to get to grips with it at all. The citation is for David Jeremy, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, "(John) Beresford Stuart Gabriel." Is there any way I can reduce the length of the list output of reflist by combining these references, which all point to the same article and are for all intents and purposes pointing to the same page of it (it is multipage, but barely so and only if you use large fonts!) ?

I don't want to impose but would be really grateful if you do have a solution to this and can point me to the right place. Sitush (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for fixing and the explanation on my talk page. I think that I understand now. As for DYK, well, I'm astonished - it went through without a discussion, let alone an argument :) Sitush (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK went through so smoothly because your article is impressive -- and because the hook that I wrote was one that I knew would be pretty easy to verify. The DYK should give the article a bit of well-deserved attention. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I actually thought that your previous wording] was actually both more accurate and more appropriate. But no big deal. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at HuskyHuskie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the restoration; I thought I'd been careful not to remove any improvements, but apparently not. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for removing the unsourced stuff -- you clearly were more familiar with the article history that I am. I had been looking unsuccessfully for a source for the MBA. I did find some ghits that mentioned the MBA in the search-result description, but either I couldn't see the full article or the full article didn't contain the info. --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'd never before seen it; I was simply going through the hooks in that queue and looking at the sources for their hooks, and to my surprise, the information in the hook wasn't in the article at all. It was such an egregious omission that I assumed that it had been removed, so I began diving into the history. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of an alternative hook to Edward Proger 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 the nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm close to the limit of what I can do with the Churchill Machine Tool Company entry but there is something that is tantalising me on Google Books & which I can't see in full because I'm not in the US. If you can see [[4]] then would you have time to summarise the relevant bits for me please? In particular, there seems to be a reference to the size of the factory building & number of employees. Or do the copyright issues mean that even you cannot see it in the US? Sitush (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it, but I don't have time to extract the info right now. I did see that page 235 states that the factory employed "less than 100 men" as of the August 12th previous to the writing. I will send you more details later. --Orlady (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's really no rush about this at all. I don't think WP is going to disappear real soon now. I'm just grateful if the info can be gathered in due course ... and mystified as to why a US govt publication that is not classified in the US is nonetheless restricted outside it. The very fact that you can do what I queried shows the futility of a regional restriction. Bureaucratic decisions are v. weird sometimes :) Sitush (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to hear your explaination as to why the "promotional" retoric for PA Cyber is allowed, and my addition, while similar in nature, was removed? Also, blogs and wikis were removed as technologies? Are you familiar with Web 2.0 tools that are in integral parts of distance education?D.moorex47 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Distance education is a mess. That does not obligate Wikipedia to tolerate new additions that make the bad situation worse.
As for the repeated addition (by you and several other new or unregistered users -- are you working together?) of "wikis" to the list, it is not at all obvious that these are methods of education delivery in current use, you have not cited a source (please see WP:Verifiability regarding the need for references to verify content), and it is not obvious that these are inherently different from the examples already given in the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a good going-over during yet another period of being unable to sleep. It is virtually unrecognisable from its prior state and, hopefully, is at least a little more deserving of its place in an encyclopedia.It probably needs expanding now - controversy about testing methods etc - but I'm not really qualified to do this. Sitush (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I was the person who initially put up the little St Peter Danbury page which has created such a stir around here. I noticed that you removed a reference that I made to a post card with a picture of the church.

I have been to Danbury with the sole purpose of researching the local Catholic Churches there. I saw St. Peter Church while I was there. The church is identical to the one in the post card that you removed.

And the Arcadia Publishing book with a reference to 1925 associated with St. Peter Church --- the picture in the book was taken in 1925. The church dates from 1870-76 and not 1925.Lukascb (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I interpreted the caption as indicating the date of the church, not the date of the photo. Since the only reference cited in the article that identified the 1870 building as the "present" church building was published in 1896, I made an incorrect conclusion. I fixed the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your useful contributions to this discussion, and to particular articles, too. Please join me in mentioning WP:Civility during this discussion. I am doubtful about the mass deletion process, but I seek calm deliberation. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady, thanks for relocking the page... but why only give him 24 hours? I mean, it's not like he didn't threaten to keep it up after his last block [[5]]... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orlady, as you can see your IP blocks are useless in silencing me. Listen, consensus agreed to keep the information yes, but the later added material was cited, and shouldn't have been viewed as disruptive. I was just exercising my right to contribute under the guidelines of sourced material. Apparently this change in demeanor angered both you and the above wikipedian... and so my valid contributions were reverted, and I was blocked. I am sorry you suffer from chronic hypocrite syndrome, but please, let's try and be civil. Now, I recommend a truce. I believe the information added was valid and should be allowed. One user argued it was too much information... yet if you look up John Lennon's murder, or JFK's murder, it goes into grave detail of how the murders occur. I ask why not allow it in this innocent girl's case? I recommend a consensus in regards to the added material. Best 69.177.22.57 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, you need to stop these useless IP blocks, they aren't working out for you. Why can't we all just edit in peace? I have offered up a concensus, what's the problem here? 149.152.191.2 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're going against wp:consensus. She's been nice and only blocking you for a day at a time. Markvs88 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concensus is new Markvs88, this isn't in regards to the original concensus. I would also like to remind Orlady that since this IP is actually a seperate location, my input is valid. This location was never blocked.

Hi Orlady, at this point... why not just lock the talk page as well? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth it for the petty nature of the recent activity. Sooner or later, boredom will set in and end this. --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right, but as he appears to be a college student, boredom might take years to achieve. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I haven't heard anything, but I am inclined to believe IACBE's statement that they did. Maybe the user could include that source. JamaUtil (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my request, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)#One list needed and comment or volunteer to make a list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Our Lady of Victory (disambiguation), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.ourladyofvictory.org.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is clearly confused. The disambiguation page is not copied from another source. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your quick actions regarding User:Markglad and the Thomas Jefferson article recently. I wanted to let you know that I added a new problem on the post on the noticeboard hoping you would see it. Thanks! _{nonsense!this}Salegi^{speaking.drivel!} 18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Saints Kiril & Metodij Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese Cathedral 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! RolandR (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider taking a look there and seeing if you think semi-protection might be appropriate. I began engaging in an edit war there but I'm done, there are two accounts making edits both of which seem unconstructive. _WikiMan^One 01:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on the article's talk page seeking consensus to revert it to the previous version written, based on coverage in two secondary sources, if you see fit please participate. _WikiMan^One 23:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the previous message, an admin has already made those actions. _WikiMan^One 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up about my DYK nomination. However, distrustful rascal that I am, I had that one saved off-line, so when their computer ate the edit, mine regurgitated it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal! Glad to know that you still had a copy. --Orlady (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have any idea what the two recent bot edits at distance education are trying to do? I reverted the first one but a second has now performed exactly the same edit & I note from its talk page that a few people have been highlighting problems caused by it.Sitush (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, after you moved St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut) article yesterday, the double-redirect-fixing-bot fixed a double redirect that had been created, 10 hours or so later. It is basically pretty prompt. And, that article is the one i chose to reopen as a new single-article AFD, having been discussed in the multiple article AFD, having parish rather than church name, having been prodded previously, and having not been improved. --doncram 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten hours is far too long to wait for a bot to show up when the redirect has incoming links from other articles -- or when (as in this case) the administrator who closed a multi-article AfD hadn't yet gotten around to removing the AfD template and adding the "old afd" template to the Talk page. I am happy to wait to let the bot take care of changing redirects that aren't in active use, but that's not a good idea when the redirects are in use. --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't realise you have a set of special tools. Is there any truth in the sockpuppet thing? --Kudpung (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably simply that as a sysop you are more used to looking at these templates than I am. --Kudpung (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, sorry. So are you saying that Salegi and User:WikiManOne are not sockpuppets? --Kudpung (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Clinton Engineer Works, Nichols does use both terms - CEW or Oak Ridge, though sometimes using Oak Ridge for the residential part? Did the AEC have a new name for CEW when they took over in 1947 or just Oak Ridge? Hugo999 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Clinton Engineer Works was one of several names that were essentially code names. Specifically, it was the Army Corps of Engineers name for their entire operation here. Since Clinton was the nearest (small) city to the area, the name "Clinton Engineer Works" was useful in the surrounding region as, for example, the address to which supplies were delivered. I believe that the CEW name stopped being used around the time that the Army Corps of Engineers stopped running the operation, which was roughly when the war ended. The entire area came to be called Oak Ridge (which also started out as a code name). The code names for the production facilities of X-10, Y-12, and K-25 survived for decades as the names of the site areas where those facilities were located; "Y-12" is still in active use as the name of that site, but in the last 20 years (or so) the X-10 and K-25 names have started to fade from regular use. (The S-50 name is largely forgotten -- because that facility very close to the K-25 site and because it was demolished not long after the war, long before there was any public access to the K-25 area, there is little reason for people to associate its name with a location.) All of the Manhattan Project production facilities are "in" Oak Ridge -- and inside the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge. In local usage, the residential and office area was long known as "the townsite" (a name that distinguished it from the production sites). --Orlady (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at WikiManOne's talk page.
Message added 07:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

FYI - because I'm still confused. Kudpung (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orlady. I believe a better disambiguation page for these conventions would be National Baptists and not National Baptist Convention. National Baptist Convention is the historic reference to the oldest and largest Black baptist convention. When someone types in National Baptist Convention, they will generally be looking for the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. because that is the conventions known reference. None of the other conventions use that name only NBCUSA. I was going to create a National Baptists page for the current information that appears on the National Baptist Convention page and redirect that page to the historic convention for which it is universally known. I am the person who has built these pages. I just forgot my password to the other usernames. I'm toneadr and the other unhidden IP address that has been improving these pages for a year now. I've been a national baptists for decades. I know that this is the common usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nationalbaptists (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that the decisions of other editors is not based on the merits of the article in question just because they do not agree with yours is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. My decision was based SOLELY on the merits of the article. The fact that my interpretation of the standards for inclusion are more stringent than yours is no reason to question my good faith.

I've always remained open to changing my vote, but, as of yet, none of the sources you have added establishes, in my opinion, that the school meets WP's notability guidelines for schools, which I have thoroughly read several times to ensure that my decision was well justified.

Furthermore, I see nothing in Kudpung's vote or response that indicates that he came to his decision based on anything other than the merits of the article. Rather than "personally attacking" Copritch, he offered his assistance in helping him become a better editor.

As for the Blountville school, I agree that it should have been deleted, and would have voted to delete it myself. However, the fact that it was retained is poor justification for retaining this article. Two wrongs do not make a right. Furthermore, this AfD is about St. Andrew's, not any other schools. Any decision should be made solely on the merits of this article.

I have to admit I'm impressed by the amount of time and work you have invested in this article. But that, of course, has had no bearing on my decision, either.

As for Copritch, his actions have had no bearing at all on my decision. Nor do I consider pointing out his unsportsmanlike behavior to have been a "personal attack" or "biting" a newcomer. New editor or not, he behaved very inappropriately, and getting "nabbed" is not the same as getting "bitten".

Now, speaking as a parent and educator, and not as a WP editor, I'm not concerned about his future here on WP. I'm concerned about his future in real life. His behavior and attitude reveal that he has some serious character issues to work on. "Kicking the cat" is NOT a proper way to deal with frustration. I've been deeply troubled by this for the past few days. If you have any influence over him, please advise him to have a serious talk with his parents and pastor. Problems like this are easily dealt with if nipped in the bud. I'd do it myself, but, frankly, I'm afraid I'd be too heavy-handed. I'm not known for being subtle, especially in writing. Thanks, and good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect to see a message here from Dominus, but here goes anyway: citing Blountville school is inappropriate - it falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF and is not an AfD argument. Nevertheless, because the WP:WPSCH has been largely inactive for a long time, it is clear that a lot of schools will have slipped through the net. As new janitor for schools, however, probably very little new stuff will escape my evil eye. Even then, what Orlady as an admin might close as keep or delete today, another admin might have do the opposite tomorrow, but the decision must be based on the policies, and principles we practice today and which have been accepted by the community as consensus through precedent. Kudpung (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that Blountville example as a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but rather of WP:OUTCOMES#Education. I was not commenting on the mere existence of another article, but rather on the conclusion of another AfD in which the persuasive "keep" comment that I believe led to the AfD concluding as "keep" was by the administrator who is largely responsible for drafting WP:OUTCOMES#Education, and who said in that AfD that "the multiple non-trivial references clearly meet WP:N." It appears to me that, rather than applying WP:N, there is a new interpretation of WP:OUTCOMES#Education (one not intended by its authors) as indicating that no elementary or middle school can ever be notable, regardless of the existence of independent reliably sourced coverage. --Orlady (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whata good idea! It would save us both a lot of work ;) --Kudpung (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But surely even you will agree that certain elementary schools are notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mather is blatantly obvious. You clearly missed the humour in my comment. What makes the difference is that 'even' I am neither a deletionist nor a inclusionist - perhaps the only 'ist to describe editors like me is the one in insist, where we try to play by the rules, don't Wikilawyer, and don't look desperately for loopholes. If those rules change tomorrow, I will follow the new ones. I'm old enough to remember a magistrate who once had to put men behind bars for being gay; before he retired he was having to perform their marriage ceremonies at city hall. Kudpung (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]