Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

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 December 2010 } 13 - Talk from January 2011 to April 2011 14 - Talk from April to October 2011 15 - Talk from November 2011 to March 1, 2012 16 - Talk from March 2 to June 2012 17 - Talk from July to September 2012 18 - Talk from October 2012 to February 2013 19 - Talk from March 2013 to ...

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

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]

Hi Orlady. I've added a comment on the Bircham International University talk page and would be grateful if you could assist me. There are a number of improvements that can be made to the article. Vivj2012 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady. I've responded to you on the Bircham International University talk page. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I'd appreciate it if you could review my comment on the article Talk Page regarding a recent statement issued by John Bear. I'd like to get some advice on how best to proceed. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you could please review the John Bear statement as mentioned above. I'd rather not involve senior editors and enter a dispute. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've done some fiddling with the Mark Andrew (politician) article and was hoping you'd take another look at the DYK nom. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 22:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your support during the recent unpleasantness. PumpkinSky talk 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not feel bad about the comments of KumiokoCleanStart, who is a mere busybody caricature of the productive editor that was once Kumioko. In general these days, his commentary, which is almost always negative (especially when it concerns admins), can safely be ignored. It's a little sad, but it's true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the situation. It's clear that Kumioko feels he is being persecuted here, so he is taking the side of everyone else who looks like they might be a victim. Further, I assume he is resentful because of my past criticisms of WikiProject United States and because of recent interactions at Template talk:WikiProject United States. Regardless of any of that, my concern is not with Kumioko, but with the assumption that "where there's smoke, there must be fire". I am tired of people assuming that I must have said or done some truly awful things to certain other users because those same kinds of accusations have been repeated so often. --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check the recent edits. I'm not sure past-tensing everything provides an accurate description. Bms4880 (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your post at Talk:Hartsville, Tennessee, and I think I found something that cleared this all up. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		Excellent work finding hard-to-find sources. Impressed.Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I am amazed to see what you were able to do with the links I listed on the talk page. Impressive! --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was easy to whip together something after the hard part (finding the stuff) was done. Curious how you did the searching? I hunted earlier but did not find much. Did you use special algorithms? What search strings did you use?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that when you add words to a Google search string, you can often find good (and interesting) content that will never appear in the results of a more basic search. I searched for sets of keywords like "Phillips Andover Exeter", "Exeter Andover metaphor", and "Exeter Andover preppy". I think I may have also used "Exeter Andover Grottlesex". I imagine you could also have fun with combinations like "Exeter Andover Holden Caulfield". I set the search settings to return 100 results, so I'm not induced to focus on just the top hits. --Orlady (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Andover Exeter metaphor" -- I never woulda thunk -- a rather enlightened approach. Grottlesex -- first time I've heard that term, again good idea. Thanks for sharing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roberto Carnaghi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• de la Cultura" |trans_title=Roberto Carnaghi declared "Outstanding Personality of Culture")|work= |date=August 11, 2012|language=Spanish |publisher=Asociacion Argentina de Actores|accessdate=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I need this removed off the list. Your edits weren't shown on the original page as I was promoting it and it showed up only after I had saved the page. Mea culpa. Ashwin147 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have pulled the hook out of the prep area and restored the nomination to the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Tuya Soy.
Message added 13:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DivaKnockouts 13:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Tuya Soy‎.
Message added 01:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DivaKnockouts 01:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the claim that this is an academic publisher? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article statement about "academic publishing" and I removed it from the university presses category. It appears that there are many more issues there that I haven't looked at yet. I hadn't watchlisted this title, so your message was my first indication that it was no longer a redirect. Sigh... --Orlady (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you're pretty active in reviewing DYKs. We've got one for Nancy Chang that I believe will check out okay, with two possible hooks, but we need someone that hasn't worked on it to give it a final review. Would you be willing? Thanks so much, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just be patient! It's still a fairly recent nomination; it will get reviewed sooner or later. I've been mainly focusing on trying to deal with older nominations that have been problematic. --Orlady (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	While on recent changes patrol, I ran across your messages to Jesus Lover0000. I found your patience, thoroughness, and friendliness to be an exemplary way to help a new user. In recognition of these outstanding contributions to Wikipedia I hereby award you the Barnstar of Diplomacy. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jesus Lover0000's amiability in response to talk-page comments makes it easier to continue the effort. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, since your ALT4 was not accepted, I was wondering whether you could review the ALT5 that was subsequently proposed by Hawkeye7 in its place. The hook was self-approved by Hawkeye7, but I have reversed that approval since it is explicitly against the rules. The nomination's been dragging on, though, and I was hoping you could see whether the new ALT is any good and the nomination truly ready for approval. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Archived copy --Tito☸Dutta 00:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked two editors, and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billsilver1984. Maybe you want to weigh in, as you have been active in reverting these editors as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, I'm asking you and Crisco 1492 (who's getting the same list) to take a look at some of the oldest DYK nominations, if you have time: the ones that seem to be badly mired. If either of you can unstick any them, that would be great. They are:

• May 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Business tourism: this one got stuck when there was disagreement as to whether this was really different from business travel, and now there's a new disagreement over whether it should be closed for inaction. I'm sure one of you would know what needs to be done.
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Kitty: There have been issues with the BBC site and close paraphrasing surrounding it. Is it finally okay?
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamburg Steak: should this be a separate article, or folded into "hamburger"? (It does seem to be different from Salisbury steak, and an earlier invention besides.)
• June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh: the article had been quite unstable, but it seems to have calmed down (no edits at all in the past 40 hours, the RfC closed on July 3). The big problem is the hook: Faizan and Zayeem have deadlocked over it, and we have mutually unacceptable original (Faizan) and ALT1 (Zayeem) versions. I suggested that a new ALT2 be proposed, but neither seems willing, wanting it to be from a neutral party. Can either of you step in and propose one? Please?
• June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Snowden: still getting dozens of edits a day (very unstable) nearly four weeks after creation. Should it be closed, or ought we to keep waiting?
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mink industry in Denmark: after several go-rounds, Nikkimaria seems to think that this needs a thorough ref check, see User talk:Nikkimaria#Template:Did you know nominations/Mink industry in Denmark redux squared. Thoughts?
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wennergren: the hook is about Wennergren's son rather than him. Mentoz86 thinks that's a problem. Care to chime in with a new hook or another thought now that over two weeks have passed?

Thank you both very much, and I apologize that there are so many. These need a more experienced touch than I have. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both refs. Please check it out. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive replied to your concerns raised at the DYK nomination page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rose Lambert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Hadjin and the Armenian Massacres''. Fleming H. Revell Company. Full text available online from [[http://armenianhouse.org/lambert/hadjin/title.html Armenia House] or [http://books.google.com/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, the article has been given a series of edits by Rosiestep after your review that highlighted its deficiencies. I was wondering whether you would be willing to go back and give it another going over. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orlady. You have new messages at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Barony_of_Chalandritsa.
Message added 07:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 07:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping by to say thank you for helping me with the formatting of the DYK nomination of Elisabet Höglund. Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still problematic?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing something like this before. Who is the user? Did I ask you about this previously? BusterD (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Do you think there should be a NRHP for this? If so, you are the resident Coal town guy (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CTG! I don't think you'll get anything near unanimous agreement that I deserve this one, though. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough. There's a line and you've crossed it. None of us want to contribute to DYK with people like you around. I understand your desire to improve the quality of DYK but you stopped being constructive the moment you came up with your "flabbergasted", implying we only care about our DYK credit. Rosie bent over backwards to address your concerns which has since practically removed half of the article. I haven't spoken up until now because I always assumed good faith in you and respected you and your input but you've just blown that by what you said. I'm not willing to go to the lengths that you expect for perfection. it's DYK not FA, and quite frankly none of our readers truly care about most of the issues you identify. You are most welcome to point out errors in our work by contacting any one of us, we do care about accuracy, but please stay away from our DYK noms. It completely kills any enjoyment in producing articles having to answer up to you. If I see you so much as breathe in one of our DYK nominations again I'm going to withdraw it the moment you start commenting, and whatever you think about our articles, we produce the widest and arguably most interesting range of articles than anybody else on wikipedia and DYK would be a poorer place without our range of work. If you have a problem with an article you fix it. Getting a single DYK is just not worth the grovelling; we don't owe you or wikipedia anything. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is timely. I had been considering declaring that I would no longer contribute to review of DYK noms by your "group" (meaning the loose consortium of Dr. Blofeld, Rosiestep, and Nvvchar) due to my growing concern about article quality. I don't think that such a declaration on my part would be to your benefit, nor to the benefit of the articles you contribute.

Note: If I refrain from reviewing your articles, I will continue to reserve the right to veto another user's approval of a hook if I see issues (for example, when I am considering moving the hook to a prep area or the queues). --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're aware that I've long believed DYK needs reform and that I am fully aware that many articles going through are not high quality articles. For quite some time now I've been more motivated to get important articles up to GA status like Marrakesh and Paris, and the thought of several million people reading the work a year in my opinion is a far greater motivator for me than the 1,500 or so which might read one of our DYKs for a few hours. I'm usually not even online when they're shown anyway. But the point of DYK for me is not to produce work of real quality, or having interesting hooks (let's face it most are dull as dishwater which nobody cares about) but to display the breadth of work editors are working on. I like having a bank of diverse articles I can look back over and I enjoy working with Rosie and Nvv and the others and the spirit of collaboration. That's what wikipedia and DYK should be about, a mechanism to encourage editors to improve and write new articles and to display what editors can achieve together and the diversity of interests.

I agree that preferably our articles should be as accurate and well-written as possible and at times we do rather rush our DYK noms but a lot of that has to do with the petty rules including the 5-day deadline and the 5x expansion which causes most of the problems you see. I can't blame you for wanting to improve a flawed process which in turn often produced flawed articles. But when it starts to grate and seem like you're not helping in good faith to solve the problems and promote the articles but would seemingly rather complain about them and continue to berate the writers for their apparent shoddy editing which stalls nominations for absurdly long periods I think it makes what is supposed to be enjoyable quite the opposite. But the reality is I could go through even the best DYK noms and find a great number of issues and stall them, but it doesn't usually happen and they go through and few except those hypersensitive about the main page quality really care. Honestly we don't mind constructive criticism which results in identification of errors and better articles as a result. But there is a difference between constructive criticism and seemingly intentional pickiness and whatever we do to try to improve the situation just doesn't seem to meet your approval. It's very frustrating, especially when you insult the editors it doesn't come across in the spirit of cooperation I'd like to see. That's why I've chosen to speak up about it. But it's not as if you're the only one. There's quite a few editors who give DYK contributors a really hard time over the quality of their work.

What it comes down to, an argument also given by Sandy Georgia, Tony and many others is that only the very highest quality work should be displayed on the front page. And they're right. The front page of wikipedia should ideally display only the best quality work. But as long as DYK exists and only accepts basic expansions, I don't think you can really improve the situation. We both know that there are scores of articles going through DYK every day which are far from ideal and if you really scrutinize them they likely have a lot of sourcing and content flaws, but DYK has never been about showcasing the best work has it. Until DYK is scrapped entirely and replaced with something which is quality centred like FA, GA or whatever then expecting similar standards to FA just isn't in the right context. What we need is reform, and I'd be the first to support a change. I believe DYK is a good mechanism to showcase the diversity of work but I'd support a change in the hook format, scrapping of the petty rules, introduce schemes to raise the quality by offering competitions for DYK contributor to produce best DYK of the week/month etc. Picking on random articles and making an example of them which I see you and Sandy do quite a bit I don't think is really going to change anything long term, rather it will irk a lot of people off and discourage them to contribute to DYK, not the answer in my opinion. Take care. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[EC -- drafted before reading your last paragraph] Well, in spite of the 5-day rule, many DYK contributors manage to have their articles in pretty good condition before they nominate them at DYK -- often by creating them in user space and not moving them to main space until they are reasonably solid start-level articles. Additionally, article improvement might not be the purpose of DYK, but a lot of articles get improved after they are posted on the nominations page. It's common for a reviewer to see issues that the creators and nominators overlooked, and it's perfectly all right to fix those issues during the review process. That shouldn't surprise you. I know that Rosiestep, in particular, has fixed a lot of articles at this stage of the process.

FWIW, I follow two main routes in my review of DYK noms. Both of these lead me to look at more than my share of noms with problems. Lately I've seen several of your noms via one or the other of these routes:

1. I often focus on noms that have been on the noms page for a long time due to unresolved problems. My goal is to resolve problems, not create new problems. This often means rolling up my sleeves to improve articles; I've also written a lot of new hooks to get noms moved forward.

2. When I'm adding hooks to a prep set or reviewing a prep set before sending it to the queue, I review the prior review to satisfy myself that the hook and article are ready for main-page exposure at DYK. If I decide the hook isn't ready, I usually add a note about the problem, but don't try to fix the issue right then because I'm in a hurry to deal with the prep set.y --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to respond to a discussion on someone's talk page that doesn't involve me, but this is ridiculous. Orlady's DYK reviews are fine and she even helps improve articles when she doesn't have to such as with C/O Sir. Orlady is right about the fact that your group can work on articles in user space and that there are additional opportunities during the review process. You are complaining about reviewers only wanting quality DYK articles, but you should want the articles to be high quality as the creator. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, please don't lecture me on quality. P-lease. Orlady has a point about working on articles in user space. but I've never done that. There is a difference between constructive criticism and wanting to improve quality and help editors improve compared to somebody like Orlady who often seems to intentionally stall DYKs and seems to relish continuing to stall them and pick holes in them despite frantic editing to improve them. If she really wanted our articles to go through she'd edit the articles herself and fix the issues which she believes the editors still have not addressed, given that we really didn't understand what she was really complaining about. There is a certain group of reviewers on here who seem to do all they can to prevent articles going through, that isn't in good spirit, concerned about quality or not. Take your Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Hotel (Sioux City, Iowa) for instance. I'd have made the necessary edits needed to approve it straight off rather than cause you the trouble, see how it has been unnecessarily stalled and how irritating it gets? Whatever you're feeling over the way your nomination has been handled, judging by your comments to the reviewer, well that's how I feel on a lot of the DYKs I put through. I could argue that Cbl62 "just wants to help improve the article" in the same way. Really? Doesn't look like it to me. If he really wanted to help you he'd have made that slight tweak and approved the original. Same applies with Orlady and the articles. My point above all is that reviewers should work with editors in good faith to improve an article which there have problems with not against them and treat them as if they're shoddy, incapable editors. Generally I believe that Orlady is working in good faith to improve DYK and has often been constructive, but several of her recent reviews of our work give the impression that she enjoys stalling us and stopping nominations from going through, otherwise she'd correct the problems herself... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 06:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, there is a limit to the number of hours of my time that I am willing to devote to helping another user improve a short article in order for it to be displayed on DYK -- particularly when that user is someone who champions the alleged high quality of their work or expresses hostility toward my input. (A contributor's becoming the subject of a DYK personality cult, although possibly no fault of the contributor, also doesn't help make me enthusiastic about quietly providing assistance.) Further, note that I rarely seek QPQ credit for my reviews.

Consider the effort that I put into some of my recent contributions to work of the "Rosblofnari" group (including one review on which I declared that I wasn't going to help):

• Mink industry in Denmark: This DYK review edit provided some additional sources not cited in the article, suggestions on what could be extracted from these sources to improve the article, and comments on the significance of this information. This edit to the article was a substantial improvement to a reference citation that had previously (among its errors) misidentified the commercial publisher of a science journal as the author of the article.
• Eagle Peak (Wyoming): My first edit to the DYK review was made after a fairly extensive effort to review sources cited in the article and find good information about the article topic. Note that the edit cited a new, hard-to-find source. I deleted the article's Geology section not out of malice, but because I had been unsuccessful in finding any reliably sourced content that could be used to create a sensible, sourced section on this topic. In this next comment on the DYK review template, in which I was trying very hard to help the main author of the article understood the reasons for my concern with that section, I did some additional online research, some of which is reflected by the inclusion of a new source link in the comment. This edit that I later made to the Geology section of the article was the end result of a quite a bit of searching and reading over several days. At that time, the Geology section was the only one I had studied (because the content seemed so odd when I first read the article), but before I posted this comment on the DYK review page, I had thoroughly reviewed the article and those sources I could access, and I had searched extensively for additional online information about Eagle Peak. I honestly didn't think the nomination was salvageable, and I didn't want to devote any more hours of my life to what turns out to be a wisp of a topic.
• Bruno Möhring: My involvement with this one spanned an entire month. My early edits on the DYK nominations page (such as this one) were merely identification of issues and recommendations for addressing those issues. After seeing that the main author was trying hard but floundering, I delved more deeply into the sources and the article. I didn't attempt to fix the issues with the entire article, but focused on a few parts. This series of edits was the culmination of a fair amount of research on my part. It included addition of new sources and new information, as well as revision of text to improve the English and correct some factual errors and misinterpretations that I found in the article. My work in the article and at the nomination page led to a good hook that eventually got approved, and I made a couple of other visits to the article to revise some problematic passages. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A contributor's becoming the subject of a DYK personality cult, although possibly no fault of the contributor, also doesn't help make me enthusiastic about quietly providing assistance." Thankyou for being honest. The impression I've been getting is that you somehow resent how many DYKs we produce and my DYK list. It doesn't matter what my status or number of DYKs is, each nomination should be treated as fairly as any other. Yes, you've made edits, but you know very well that you could have made the mink and Eagle articles ready for DYK if you really wanted to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why stop at suggesting I stop at those two articles? Why not suggest that I quit my job, abandon my family, and don a nun's habit and sequester myself in a library where I devote my life to helping other Wikipedia users perfect their articles?

Indeed, I could have fixed the mink article, and I likely would have done so if I thought the article creator lacked the capacity to do so (due to lack of ability in English, unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, etc.). Because I was operating under the impression that there were several people involved with the article who had the capacity to do the necessary work -- and who would be motivated to do so because they take pride in their work, I simply provided information about the issues I had identified, along with suggestions on fixing them. Apparently I misjudged the people I was interacting with. My point I want to make here is that I am happy to extend charity toward those who cannot help themselves, and I am often try to be helpful for no apparent reason, but I tend to be a lot less willing to be charitable when I feel someone is taking advantage of my generosity -- particularly when they attack me for not doing more.

As for Eagle Peak (Wyoming), I tried, but I don't believe that there's enough information to support a valid 5x expansion. Good luck with your next reviewer. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Why stop at suggesting I stop at those two articles? Why not suggest that I quit my job, abandon my family, and don a nun's habit and sequester myself in a library where I devote my life to helping other Wikipedia users perfect their articles?" Well, the time you spent scrutinizing everyone of the sources and the effort you put in trying to find errors and report on them in the Mink article wasn't your typical busy mother of four operating., put it that way.. It takes a lot of time checking and reading every source...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) EVERYONE knows that total voluntary seclusion must use a didgeridooCoal town guy (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I really wanted to Orlady I could pick dozens of holes in this article and could have gatecrashed this DYK nom and stalled it.

• What makes idefix.com a reliable source?
• MOS issues with publisher given before title in sources
• Excessive reliance on Today's Zaman as a source without an adequate range of sources.
• There is a lot of controversial material in the article which really should be wider researched to other sources. I'm suspicious with the excessive use of Today's Zaman as a source, a paper which appears to have a certain political stance.

My point is that this article, several of ours, or most others have multiple "issues", only you choose to act upon every minor concern and grill certain editors for their lack of quality. If you gave a fair approach on every article, you'd not have approved this article and would have mentioned the basic referencing problems.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your comments on this DYK nomination of mine (nominated after finding the article on a "new articles" list):

Q: What makes idefix.com a reliable source?

I don't know if it's a reliable source, but I have no reason to question it. It's cited in quite a few other Wikipedia articles and it's never been discussed at WP:RSN. Anyway, it's not the source of the DYK hook fact.

• MOS issues with publisher given before title in sources

Those kinds of MOS niceties are not a consideration for DYK.

• Excessive reliance on Today's Zaman as a source without an adequate range of sources.

The article cites a total of four different online publishers, so it hardly relies on one source. Since Today's Zaman is in English (unlike most of the sources on this topic), it's not surprising that the English Wikipedia article would contain several citations to it. I generally AGF on a contributor's choice of sources unless I see evidence of a problem.

• There is a lot of controversial material in the article which really should be wider researched to other sources. I'm suspicious with the excessive use of Today's Zaman as a source, a paper which appears to have a certain political stance.

Where's the controversy? If your knowledge of Turkish politics causes you to be concerned about the controversy and the use of that source, I wonder why you didn't raise your concerns during the DYK review. Additionally, if this article is truly controversial or has non-neutral POV, I'd expect to see commentary from people with other POVs, particularly after the article appeared on the main page in DYK. Until your comments here, no objections to these aspects of the article surfaced since the article's appearance in DYK. I also note that the articles about the same topic in the Kurdish and Turkish Wikipedias have been pretty stable, although there was some edit warring on the Turkish article back in 2011. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating this. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 13:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could help me figure this out. It seems like the reviewer is holding up the nomination just because it isn't linked to a certain list although the article is not an orphan. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend patience. This nomination is still very new, so there's really no cause to expect it to be reviewed already. The reviewer lives a few countries away from Georgia and may have some knowledge of the subject matter; they could be heading off to the library to check an offline source (or something like that). The article looks solid, so it should just be a matter of time.

I find that it's generally unproductive for me to fret over the review status of my DYK noms -- they all get reviewed eventually. --Orlady (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that they get reviewed eventually, but I just wanted to fix something as soon as I could if there was something for me to fix. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't be concerned about the wikilink for now. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit! --Orlady (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady – I appreciate your improving and DYK nominating the article on Motunau Island. I am just a little wary about the statement that the island supports half the world’s breeding population of White-faced Storm Petrels. The source refers to NZ white faced storm petrels (emphasis on the ‘NZ’). I think the statement in the source is clumsy and ambiguous, but suspect it was intending to refer not to the world population of the whole species, but either to the subspecies that breeds in New Zealand, or possibly to the proportion of the population that breeds in New Zealand. Either way it might be safer to add the ‘NZ’ to the statement in the article and nomination. Cheers. Maias (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see the issue. (Glad you were paying attention!) I pulled the hook out of the DYK prep area to give time to sort this out. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested an alt. SL93 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I hereby award the "Random Acts of Kindness" Barnstar to you for your excellence in working with a new contributor at Talk:Tractor Supply Company. You did a great job of explaining how referencing and images work while using plain language. Royalbroil 03:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- but I fear that you give me more credit than I deserve, since I had reverted this user's edits a few times before the productive talk-page discussion finally began. I have high hopes that this interaction will lead to a much better article. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. Done. DS (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have received the nomination document today. It is in three files with many pages so now I have plenty to expand the article Simmons Hardware Company Warehouse. SL93 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused — why self-revert on Cornelison Pottery? This page clearly shows that you had the right company's website. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the right history, but the company isn't Bybee Pottery. It's "Little Bit of Bybee", a shop in Middleotown, KY, that sells Bybee products. Anyway, if the Bybee article and the Cornelison article get merged, this will be moot because the Bybee article has a link to this website. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago, someone showed me Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas, after I had commented something like, "sheesh....such drama going on at....", which had nothing to do with DYK. The article brought a smile to me, but given the most current noms, I think this article missed something. Some goodbyes are not forever, they just rebrand and return. I shouldn't laugh, but you could have bet money on this one. BTW, what confuses me is that the "new" name has been in effect for years. Wasn't that a sock? I guess I don't understand that ins and outs of rules that don't always apply. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay! Thanks for the link. I need to remember that one!

I hadn't looked into the history of this "new arrival". According to the WP:SPI archive, it's a disclosed alternative account that is not subject to sanctions. However, considering the way way "they" have been talking to "each other", a new SPI case may be in order. (I have not, however, looked at the recent history closely enough to verify that they are truly pretending to be different people.) --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a textbook story of the "diva" phenomenon, but I don't think that the use of the new alter ego is seriously deceptive enough as to violate the rule against sockpuppetry. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a sock puppet I wouldn't exactly redirect my talk page watched by some 400 people to a different account , notify FA delegates and make it so bleedin obvious would I? Ask Amalthea, anybody, it's common knowledge among anybody who isn't stuck so far up their arse they can't see what is going on." If I was a diva, I wouldn't edit wikipedia and work in a community where the harder you work and the better known you get, the worse you get treated. I'd be out being a rock star demanding everybody kiss my feet. Some goodbyes are not forever, they just rebrand and return". I'll be damned if I do Maile, I solemnly promise you that my name won't appear at DYK again, although sometimes people nominate things without you doing so, I believe I had to remove my name from a Drmies nomination yesterday. My next article is Environmentalism in Tennessee, ideal material for the disgruntled among us to devour. Don't make things personal Orlady, please shut up and continue doing what you do and I'll do the same. Adios. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I had as much of my ego bound up in Wikipedia as some people apparently do, I suppose I would be a regular at FA (in hopes of picking up accolades for my work) and I suppose I would have checked Dr. Blofeld's talk page to see what he was doing after saying "Adios" at WT:DYK. But I didn't. Hasta la vista! --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, seriously, when I have a fall out with somebody I always do my best to try to talk things through with people and clear the air. I always respected you on wikipedia and always treated you well until recently, but what you've done of late has really altered my perception of you and this sort of thing is atrocious for decent, respectable people to stoop down to. Seeing this sort of mocking banter towards me here I take very personally and the above posts were completely inappropriate for wikipedia by everybody. When things start to get to people on a personal level, then something needs to change. I am really not the type of person who people can do this sort of thing to and let it be. I don't like seeing you this way, myself this way, or editors who you thought were on good terms with a mutual respect turn up like Maile did here and stab you in the back. For both our sakes, I strongly suggest we talk this over either here or preferably off wiki and try to improve this situation. If you are the decent, respectable woman you profess to be you'll email me (you didn't respond to mine) and we can talk this over and try to patch up our differences.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to see your expression of good will -- and an apparent desire to "bury the hatchet". However, I find your attitude disingenuous. Your actions, not mine, are responsible for the drama that you want to end. As I see it, this episode between us started with the salvo you fired on this page when you posted "Enough is enough. There's a line and you've crossed it ... If I see you so much as breathe in one of our DYK nominations again...". It continued in the subsequent discussion here, the missiles you lobbed in my direction on WT:DYK and your various personal digs and diatribes elsewhere (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], and some derogatory remarks about "Borelady", etc., that you apparently had the good taste to delete). There is no question that you have been at the center of a lot of drama lately, but the drama is entirely of your own making (or should I say "your own authorship"). I try not to spend time fussing over wikidrama -- which helps explain why I hadn't noticed that you had shifted to using the Tibetan Prayer account. All I did was engage with you here, then inform the DYK community that I wasn't going to be reviewing any more of your group's material -- and why. As for Maile66's comment here, I interpret it as an expression of both sympathy (because I have been criticized -- mostly at your instigation -- for driving you away) and amusement, combined with bewilderment that your use of the Tibetan Prayer account hasn't been sanctioned as a case of sockpuppetry.

Now for my take on the underlying content-related issue. The principal members of your group are all known to me to be solid, capable contributors. Recently, however, I was surprised and disturbed to see DYK nominations with your names on them that had the kinds of problems I used to associate with some far less competent contributors who will go unnamed for now. Now that I recognize the lengths you had taken your collaborative article creation efforts to, I think that the decline in quality was inevitable. Collaboration is a wonderful thing when one collaborator's strengths balance collaborator's weaknesses -- for example, by supplying foreign-language translation skills or hard-to-find print references, by using good copy-editing skills to polish an article, or by using subject-matter expertise to help resolve some ambiguities in the content. It appears to me (from reviewing some article histories) that over time your group got so confident about the collaborators' abilities that you figured you no longer needed to specialize in that fashion. Instead, it looks like each of you would contribute a few sentences' worth of research and text to a new article and call the article "ready" without any one of you taking holistic responsibility for the article. In articles like Mink industry in Denmark, this resulted in internal factual inconsistencies (possibly because different people found conflicting "facts" and uncritically dumped them into the article), close paraphrasing of sources, some incoherent statements and incomplete sentences, and serious inaccuracies in representing the information provided by the sources. This "Naked Came the Stranger" approach to writing may work out OK sometimes, but I believe the results of the Rosblofnari experiment (as demonstrated in articles like Mink industry in Denmark) indicate that it is seriously deficient when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. You claim that you weren't doing this for the DYK credits, but statements like this one about the goal of getting 1000 DYK credits for other team members support my contention that the accumulation of credits was a major goal of your activities -- and a driver for the apparent emphasis on quantity over quality.

My advice to you and the rest of the Rosblofnari group is that you go back to doing what you're good at, and quit trying to pretend that you are so superior to the rest of us that you have perfected a method to churn out quality encyclopedic content using the same methods that McDonald's uses to make hamburgers. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me personally, my goal was never 1000 DYK credits or any more. but passing the 1000 DYK mark was a special moment from a contribution point of view and one which many people commented on and practically tried to get me knighted for, as a sign of respect for my contributions. I myself said that the proposal to have a DYK on me and others was going overboard and it wasn't that big a deal. I'm under the impression that Rosie and Nvv remembered that moment and that it would be a special moment for them in reaching that milestone too. And my hope is that once they reach 1000 DYK they'll feel different and join me in producing GAs rather than DYKs, that's why I said it. None of us edited for DYK for a long time after we joined. I don't think I even reached the 25 mark until 3 years later. What motivated me from the start was having a bank of articles I thought half-decent in which I can look back over in future times. I've never placed value in DYK count, and one of the reasons I'm unwilling to make a lot of changes myself with DYKs is that personally I'm not overly concerned if they hit the front page or not, I'm not motivated by getting a credit. That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to correct inaccuracies, I take accuracy very seriously, but I'll admit to rarely ever looking at DYK noms after I nominate them and not showing an interest. But I thought you might have been more willing to help correct what you saw as problematic. I see your reasons for it is that we should do it ourselves and have a high DYK count, but that in itself indicates that you place more value on DYK count and don't treat each article equally, regardless of who created it. Sure, you're busy, and don't feel inclined to help every article, who does? But you did spend a lot of time studying the sources and reviewing it and you really seemed to care or show an interest in the article. I really didn't look too much into it, but from what I saw Rosie did appear to try to improve it and then I saw you insult her/us. Another editor by email has pointed out what really happened and I can see now why you said that, but admittedly I barely even looked at the nom and problem and was only really aware of it when I was alerted to your exchange of words with Rosie which to me looked out of order on your part and that you seemed to relish continuing to complain. I agree, that's not good enough on my part, and I apologize if I confronted you about it, but it was the insult which made me respond which I thought was rather mean. But that's one of the reasons I've quit DYK is that although I've been nomming them I don't really care about pushing them through, I'm not motivated to do so and I should really be responsible for overlooking it. I'm the sort of editor who when works alone remembers the sources and content I use and if somebody confronts me about an apparent inaccuracy on my talk page I'll gladly fix it.

A big part of the problem of the DYK articles together is that many of them contain translated material, and if the editors translating it aren't fluent in it, occasionally innocent errors might creep in not accurately produced from the source. Me personally I understand Spanish and a bit of French, and am able to auto translate and decipher material for a lot of languages which makes sense to me, but I usually request a fluent speaker to check (Ipigott understands a huge number of languages, so does Yngvadottir). Nvv admitted that he has major problems with translated material in particular and I think he is aware that this can create errors. He has stated on numerous occasions that he doesn't want to edit articles which he has to auto translate for, but because our group are so global, most articles in fact need some form of translation, and Nvv, being Nvv, always willing to help and in good spirit usually contributes. Because so much content is produced, which I don't have time to check the sources by the others, I no longer want to held personally responsible for anything I didn't do myself for DYK. For a long time now I've said that I'm not enthusiastic about the DYK process, I wasn't too happy with QPQ when it was introduced and temporarily stopping contributing to DYK. But I think another cause of the problems you might have seen is the 5 x expansion and 5 day deadline rules. Rosie and I especially dislike editing in sandboxes and don't like adding material which is irrelevant to the article just for the sake of x5. It is wrong in my opinion to bloat articles just for the sake of DYK. The encyclopedia articles is far more important. I greatly value the input of the others, and I don't believe that every article is of extremely poor quality, but I am concerned that many issues go unidentified because of translation or whatever and I'd rather produce content with the group in which we have the time to check each source and produce something of higher quality like GA. But at the end of the day, nobody has to contribute anything here, and I'd rather an environment where the relationship between editors and reviewers is amicable and nobody is perceived as superior (I was thinking the same thing about you) and everybody tries to help each other. But I really am not being a diva, there are genuinely multiple reasons why I consider DYK problematic or unattractive and this was just to catalyst for what I've long felt. Wikipedia hasn't lost anything by me not contributing to DYK, it doesn't matter, honestly. I just think DYK needs reform and has a mechanism like article of the month which stops editors churning out masses of articles and trying to raise the bar and spend more time on each one.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.B, Tibetan Prayer, my Notification alert said I got mentioned in this section. I wasn't lurking, and Orlady's talk page is not on my watchlist. Just in case that thought occurs to anyone. I also wasn't stabbing you in the back. Cool your jets a little, as difficult as that might be for you right now. But Orlady generally has it correct above on why I posted what I did. Other than that, what happens between you and Orlady is something that only the two of you can hash out. I realize that your overall contributions to WP are well above the norm, and Orlady is no slouch either. I think one could say "Dr. Blofeld looms large over Wikipedia content...." No one can contribute as much as you have without sometimes being on edge about other people's postings. I understand that from my own instinctive reaction to these things, and I'm nowhere near your level. I also realize that back when I was doing my own thing and nobody was paying attention, you came out of the blue and began to encourage me at a time when some big efforts from me had been stomped all over and usurped by someone else. That meant a lot to me, and still does. I don't think any less of you because of any disputes you have going. That diva article has been around for years. Quite frankly, you fit the profile. You have a history of reacting by walking away after letting everyone know why. Nobody has to be lurking anywhere to know this. I posted it here for Orlady, because sometimes you either laugh or you cry. Laughing is better. As for the sock comment, I was - and remain - genuinely confused about how these things work at WP. Again, I wasn't lurking. I was over at DYK Talk, and my mouse went past Dr. Blofeld and showed a popup that said it was being redirected to Tibetan Prayer. I haven't delved into the multiple account name scenario much, because I've never felt the need to have a secondary account myself. But it really puzzled me. I've seen some real battles at WP by people who got blocked for a lot less. I guess the best explanation is that WP is about every volunteer in a position of power doing their own thing, or doing nothing, whatever. I wasn't stabbing you in the back then, and I'm not now. But you really could stand a cooling off period. Not pleasant to hear, and difficult to digest. — Maile (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly cool thankyou very much (if I wasn't why would I try to clear the air with Orlady). You've just contradicted yourself by saying I really helped you when you were beginning on here and was facing hardship (I've been little but very supportive and praising towards the majority of editors on here however "small") yet the diva article emphasizes several times that the diva is extremely uncivil to "smaller" editors. I happily graze editing wikipedia and never claim to own or be a superior individual, but it is no coincidence that many people come to me to ask for my advice or help with something. If I'm ever uncivil or apparently in a tantrum about something it is because I feel that content is threatened, or that somebody is belittling the hard work and time I've put in here for free. It is always as a response to somebody, you don't see me throwing my weight around on here for no reason. If there's something I feel strong enough about and really dislike I have no problems with being honest, even if people really don't want to hear it. But I rarely say something belittling about the work and contributes of others and assume bad faith, which an awful lot of editors do on this website given that none of us having to edit a single thing. It wasn't so much that you called me a diva, it was the mocking, gloating tone in which you and Orlady presented it, which was disrespectful and clearly illustrates that you really don't know me, especially as you seem to think I'll come bouncing back at DYK in a few days time. Nobody needs DYK to contribute to wikipedia Maile, and one can live perfectly well without it. As for being a diva, I think any editor who has contributed a significant amount of work on wikipedia for free with little praise or reward needs some sort of goal or challenge to continue to do so, people need some form of self-motivation whatever it maybe, and people are generally going to feel miffed if somebody infers that their contributions are rubbish. Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B, your comments about the different strengths of your different collaborators underline what I said (or tried to say) earlier on this page. That is, your group's work was much better when everyone did what they are best at and/or most comfortable with, and people weren't trying to pretend that everyone was interchangeable -- or that decent articles could be built by having each of several people contribute a few isolated sentences. Go back to having collaborators contribute according to their personal strengths and inclinations, and your collaborative work will be more favorably received wherever it is reviewed.

As for the DYK rules, they are what they are. As I see it, the DYK process encourages some contributors (myself included) to bring their work up to a fairly basic threshold of length and quality before moving on to the next project. That's good. It also can be an opportunity to recognize the work of new contributors whose good-quality work gets noticed and nominated. Another benefit is that the main-page visibility of new articles often gets them copy-edited, categorized, etc., more quickly than would happen otherwise. Finally, DYK probably provides some interesting reading -- and a demonstration of Wikipedia's diversity -- for bored people who visit the Wikipedia main page looking for amusement. I could do without the DYK count, WikiCup, and other competitions because I think that kind of emphasis on numbers tends to result in lower-quality work and it creates aggravation for the people running the process.

As you note, no one needs to contribute to DYK. However, for those who do, the review process can provide either validation or a constructive critique of their work, with less commitment than other Wikipedia review processes. No one needs to review DYK noms or contribute to maintaining the main-page flow of DYKs either. I pitch in and help with those things because I get satisfaction from creating hooks and fine-tuning them, because the content is often interesting, and because I want to be helpful. In my experience, most nominators and authors have pride in their work and want to take the initiative to respond to reviewers' concerns, but there are some who need a lot of help and generally welcome the help. Because I don't like to step on people's toes, because I assume that most article contributors know more about their topic than I have learned as reviewer, and because I see the review process as having an educational component, when I find a problem as a reviewer I often advise a contributor on how to fix the issue, rather than rolling up my sleeves and fixing it myself. Most participants are good-natured about the process, so when I encounter contributors who are belligerent (whether it's saying "my article was perfect and who are you to say otherwise?", or an accusation of politically motivated ill will on my part because I discovered that their article was a copyvio, or "I don't need this grief, fix the problem yourself", or various other reactions I've encountered), it doesn't exactly motivate me to do favors for that contributor. You and your colleagues used to be in the category of people who did good and interesting work and were good-natured about the situation when problems were pointed out; I hope you'll come back to DYK some day in that same good mood.

Now about that "diva" page. Not all of the details fit, but I still see it as an apt metaphor for events with you. It also fits a couple of other individuals I've become acquainted with on this website -- and it's timely to see it now during an Arbcom case ("Infoboxes") that deals in part with articles about real-world divas. There's no inherent shame in being a diva. Divas are genuinely star performers. (The trouble with divas relates to the personality types that seek stardom and the emotional challenges of stardom.) Because they need an adoring, admiring public, divas respond positively to audiences and they do what it takes to seal the loyalty of their fans. Similarly, the Wikipedia divas I've observed go out of their way to offer their advice and assistance to newcomers (while making sure that the newcomers are aware that they are being aided by a star), and that early contact turns some of those newcomers into acolytes who can be counted upon to publicly mourn the diva when the diva later disappears. Divas are good to their audiences. The essay describes the "little people" that divas abuse as "helpers". "Helpers" are not the diva's audience. For real-world divas, I suppose that this group includes people with minor parts in the show (such as the singers in the chorus), stagehands, costume crews, etc. -- and possibly the diva's own family members. At Wikipedia, "little people" would include (but aren't limited to) the people who make sure the DYK process runs... Orlady (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady you say that "Most participants are good-natured about the process" and that we were belligerent in response to you, but you're yet to explain why you felt the need to compare a DYK contributor's work as below that of an 8th Grader something like "if I'd contributed work like that in 8th grade I'd have had red marks all over my page" or say that "we only care about DYK credit" which I think it is is pretty clear to average person that you overstepped the mark with such comments and they came across as spiteful. And that was the only reason I spoke up, being I'm intolerant of intentional cruelty to people who work in good faith and I thought you crossed the line not with vigorous reviewing but with that comment. And I'm yet to see an apology from you over what you said especially that 8th grader comment which was bang out of order in my opinion. I'm not asking you to stop reviewing or reviewing vigorously, but I am asking you to try to refrain from making snide remarks about the work of others in your reviews and focus purely on the content rather than the contributors.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the first time you indicated to me that those remarks were one source of your concern (the earlier discussion was about other topics). I have the impression that the other user and I reached some sort of peaceful accord over that item in a related conversation at WT:DYK. In a short period of time prior to those DYK comments, I had encountered multiple users (all of whom appear to be native speakers of English and who want to be thought of here as reasonably well-educated) who chastised me for using words they didn't understand and didn't think they ought to be expected to learn (including words like "consensus" and "verifiability"). Ironically, my involvement in that particular exchange started with my attempt to be helpful by explaining Nikkimaria's comments on the article, and I was irritated by the complaint that I had not made the explanation simple enough. --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was SL93 you said that to so I think he doesn't seem bothered by it. Anyway, I think it's important on everybody's part to not take things too seriously to the point that we become offensive... Best of luck!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an opera lover, diva is absolutely positive, close to divina ;) - I read "infobox" above and would like to know what that has to do with it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, the "diva" references come from this Wikipedia essay.

I associate the "infoboxes" Arbcom case with divas because of an experience in 2007. I was chastised by a member of the opera Wikiproject over the presence of an infobox in the Grace Moore article, as well as other work I had done in that article. My critic felt that inclusion of an infobox and some other article content didn't treat the subject with the reverence that he believed an opera star to deserve: "I don't think she would have liked that. She deserves to be regarded seriously as a singer." That experience has led me to think of the anti-infobox attitude as "Infoboxes are OK for mere mortals, but they are too undignified for divas". --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about Blofeld's statements. He said that he was the most productive editor on the website and also belittled another editor based on the editor's age and writing. This was on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real-world divas aren't consistent, either. --Orlady (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, Thank you for stopping by my talkpage and for transcluding the Palikir nom. I didn't realize it wasn't transcluded or I would have taken care of that task. Appreciate your assistance with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this one. You're the best person I can think of who could have an informed and experienced opinion on the issues raised in the discussion of this DYK. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on the Badger flea DYK nomination page where you said "IMO, the information about fleas in general is appropriate to include in this article. Biology articles often repeat that kind of generic information." This was a matter that concerned me when I started writing articles on animal species and I did query the matter at WikiProject Animals. The more a specific animal is studied, the less easy it often is to find out about its basic description, feeding habits or life history because the research community has moved on to its secondary metabolites or its function as the vector of an obscure parasite. It seems to me that for the general reader, some background information of the form "Like other fleas, the badger flea ..." is useful. Many readers will not even know that a flea is an insect (although they can tell this from the taxobox). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cslcollege.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main page of DYK says "Articles for DYK should conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright." It wasn't just statistics, it also includes such things as being one of the leading sprinters of the world and having an uncited quote. If only the hook needs to be verified, that statement should be removed. SL93 (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady! There appears to be consensus to return back to 3 DYK sets a day, since there is now a backlog of 55 approved hooks out of 203 in total. Could I trouble you to change it back? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are watching Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Increase_to_eight_hooks.3F or will see it before it is relevant, but take a look at my comment if you have a chance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can change the hook to your suggestion if you want. I think that it flows better. SL93 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Blofeld's comment. Damn, that is annoying. I wouldn't still be trying to collaborate with you if I still cared about that. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to think that we can be friends in spite of occasional misunderstandings and disagreements. --Orlady (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying, maybe, but perhaps you like being treated like a dog SL, others here don't.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should mind your own business. I would hate the majority of people that I know if I hated them because of comments that they made. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Coming from the coward who hides behind another username when things get tough? SL93 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and instead of implying that I like being treated like a dog, say it. Stop with the Hannibal Lecter bullshit, coward. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on SL's talk page, removed as resolved now. Life is too short to hold grudges or remain hateful or angry with people. Continue to do what you do well Orlady and I hope we both come out of this better off. Take care.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for working on the DYK articles. They are fun to read especially about mushrooms and new discoveries of previously unknown animal, insect, and plant life. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I opened up an afd for Pete Cortlandt. After doing so I saw that I had done so about 2 years ago before and the result of the afd was delete and redirect. The same suggestion that I made in the 2nd afd. Being that a consensus has already been reached on the first afd, but no one actually performed the deletion and redirect, I am asking you to: 1) delete and redirect the article, and 2) close the 2nd afd. [5]--Wlmg (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think the new AFD needs to proceed. The article was redirected back in 2011 after the AFD, but it was revived earlier this year and has been edited by several users. It could be argued that the online revival of the series has made this character notable. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooopss I missed that. Thanks for the updated info. --Wlmg (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American women writers by state, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady, thanks for looking in on the Louis N. Stodder nomination. Just wondering about the progress: Is the nomination good to go? What is a QPQ? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillhickers: The nomination is good, and it's been moved into Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3, in preparation for going to the main page around noon EDT tomorrow.

"QPQ" refers to the DYK requirement that people who (1) are nominating their own work at DYK and (2) have accumulated 5 or more DYK credits should do a "quid pro quo" review of another nomination (this is mostly intended to spread the workload more evenly, but it also helps contributors develop their own skills in writing articles and hooks). --Orlady (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that sounds fair. Btw, another user pointed out a close paraphrasing issue on the 'Stodder page, but I've already reworded the passage in question. Thanks for your help, time and effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/August 2013 --Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for dropping by my talk page, Orlady. I got a statistic for you: you're number one! Drmies (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to North Port–Sarasota–Bradenton metropolitan area may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• August 13, 2011 |newspaper=Herald-Tribune |location=Sarasota, Florida |accessdate = August 3, 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram and I are discussing this on my talk page... you are welcome to join the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean? You previously said "The source indicates that Saint Patrick's Day commemorations are an example of symbolic ethnicity, but nothing in the source says the celebration is "highly symbolic", and that only highly was the problem. If there were any other problems, you never said what they were. SL93 (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that the proponents of the article and hook would look at what the source actually said and revise the article accordingly. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the article doesn't have what the source says. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be true that the source is different from what is in the article, even after "highly" was removed from the article and the hook. I haven't read the source, but I assumed that there were no other problems because you didn't mention anything else. SL93 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have approved the hook without looking at the online source. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced reviewer, you should have mentioned all of the problems, instead of assuming things. I figured that you had all the other points covered as the original reviewer. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, I had no reason to suspect that your review was not actually a review. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the hook from the prep area after identifying a non-trivial problem with the hook. If my only concern with the hook had been with the word "highly", I would have simply removed that one word from the article and hook. My comments in no way suggested that I had done a thorough review of the article and its sources, and I most definitely did not so much as hint that I had personally determined that everything except the hook wording was fine. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did though. "The source indicates that Saint Patrick's Day commemorations are an example of symbolic ethnicity". That is saying what the hook says. If you didn't read it thoroughly, you shouldn't have made such a statement.SL93 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had intended to suggest rewording of the hook, don't you think I would have done so? --Orlady (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you or did you not say an incorrect statement about a source, after not thoroughly reading it? SL93 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, please read this and this Times of India articles. (now, since a film has been made on his life, considering the person now passes Wikipedia notability guidelines, I have started writing Barun Biswas). Right after that an IP has jumped in and expanded the article. a) If you feel sympathetic towards this lion heart guy and b) you have some time in hand, can you please copyedit the article (this is a small article, so it'll not take lots of time), so that we can take it to DYK? (you can nominate too). --Tito☸Dutta 16:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 02:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Alex Shih^Talk 13:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks for nominating my article! I gave up on nominating them a long time ago, but its especially nice to see someone bothering to jump through the hoops to do it! I feel honored. :D Thelmadatter (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleased to nominate it. However, I'd like to hope that you would consider bringing some of your own work to DYK again. Nominations really aren't all that hard to do, and we need some more topical diversity. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Kazandibi
	Thank you for your everything you do to keep wikipedia a better place.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That looks delectable. I don't think I've ever eaten a dessert by that particular name, but it reminds me of some other pudding-like desserts I've enjoyed from Greece, the Balkans, Armenia, etc. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is delicious Turkish dessert. Its name means the bottom of the Kazan on Turksih. I ate it several times in one sweet shop operated by Macedonian Turks in Old Bazaar, Skopje, Macedonia. I also found it in one sweet shop in Greece operated by Albanians, so I guess it is possible that you ate it in Greece or Armenia. It is pudding-like. There are several different recipes. Some I found on internet even include chicken breast, but I think that most usual variant is sweet one (like the one I photographed) which is based on the milky pudding made of Rice flour, as described here. Turkish desserts are delicious and Kazandibi, Kadaifi and Kanafeh are ranked 2—4 on the top list of my favorite deserts. The first place is reserved for Greek dessert Galaktoboureko... Sorry, I could go on with stories about desserts forever. :) Cheers! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does indeed look very nice!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy work on adding sourced content to this article which had sat for years with no context. Good job! OccamzRazor (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject National Register of Historic Places Award
		For helping WP:NRHP to illustrate 50,000 historic sites. Keep up the good work! Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]