Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 4 February 2010 (→3RR: Consider promising to stop warring on this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
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 2009 to ...

Welcome!

Hello, Orlady, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Orlady, you're a sharp reader who's unafraid to be decisive and whose opinions (if any) on Brazilian matters are completely unknown to me; can I invite you as either editor or administrator (preferably not both) to look at Talk:White Brazilian (also currently near the top of WP:AN/I)?

(I'm sending a related message to DGG.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

protected areas

You may also notice what is happening to Category:National Monuments of the United States; I don't know what to do. Hmains (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

edits Grantham University

Hello Orlady,

Your comment "sourced "oldest" statement since I know that some other distance education schools claim to date to the 1890s (notably including Penn Foster).

I disagree that Penn Foster and I would like to see some reliable source that Penn Foster is the "oldest' online university. To date, Grantham is the oldest "online" university to date over Penn Foster. I wanted to know what is your opinion about this.

thanks!

Virusunknown (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Orlady,

Whoa! I like to think I learn something new everyday. Today, my dear, I've learned a lot! Point well made...thank you. --Virusunknown 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virusunknown (talk • contribs)

DYK for Alexander Arthur

On December 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander Arthur, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An easy question (I hope)

Hi Orlady! I was going to post this question on the PA project talk page and ended up reading that very long and disturbing discussion of what is and is not a PA, so I am here with my simple question instead. I'm trying to understand the IUCN categories in the context of my state's PAs of all types. I'v read and copied the PDF Guideline to no avail. A " strict nature reserve" to me would be a "ecological reserve" but what if hunting is allowed in the reserve? Maybe I'm trying to pigeonhole too much. Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Hi there. Happy new year and thanyou especially for your support on my RfA. I do tend to dip in and out of various areas of wikipedia and have a very busy life but I will do my best to be back as an admin candidate as soon as possible. Polargeo (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

iBen 06:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vardy CS

Thanks, Orlady, the DYK hook looks fine. This was indeed a good article with which to begin the new year. Bms4880 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Polaron

The editing restrictions are visible at User talk:Doncram#Please explain why both you and Polaron should not be blocked. As far as I'm concerned the meat of the agreement is EdJohnston's very concise proposal. Doncram and Polaron made a side deal, for which I requested clarification at User talk:Doncram#Poquetanuck redux. It amounts to various conditions agreed between them at Talk:Poquetanuck concerning merges, and while it's useful, I don't think it's universally applicable. As all this was developing I discovered that the NRHP nominations for Connecticut had been posted at the NPS. I have used this documentation in forming my opinion on the feasibility of merging vs. splitting. Appropriate source material makes me more comfortable with a moderately liberal attitude toward separate NRHP articles (in CT only), at least more so than before the sources became available. I see your discussions at Georgetown. I agree that a separate article must sustain more than a list of properties, but if Doncram can develop material concerning the demolition of historic properties, it could be an interesting article. I did much the same at Giant Forest Lodge Historic District, in which nothing but trees now exist. Acroterion _(talk) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Colonial revivalism

I know u took an interest at American colonial architecture terminology before. I notice a lot of related category name edits going on in articles and eventually noticed that the article Colonial revival architecture name had changed, i think without discussion, and then the editor proceeded with category name change edits in articles. If the category name change edits are misguided, perhaps it is more efficient for them to be reverted immediately before other edits come in? I wonder if you could comment at User talk:The Man in Question#Colonial revivalism and/or offer other guidance. doncram (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it your sense that i could use wp:rollback to do those reversions quickly? I think that tool is for reverting vandalism, and i'm not sure i want to label the edits as that. I am not sure if and how AWB, which i use only occasionally and not recently, would facilitate doing "Undo" and/or allow me to work on a set of contributions by one user. doncram (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually i think the following clause says it would be okay: "Provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually." I'm gonna proceed with that, unless i hear otherwise. doncram (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, too. The info you provided, plus allowing me to check about use of rollback with you, emboldened me. When i went back to the editor's talk page i didnt mention ur experience but i was informed and able to act. Tx, --doncram (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback to WikiDan

Jairam Ramesh

Regarding your Third opinion, I followed your suggestion and converted many quotes to prose. Kept those stating most important policy positions. Expansion is now 6.56x. Marcus334 (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Auburn Cord Duesenberg Automobile Museum

Please note that the A-C-D Museaum, although a National Historic Landmark, is not in an "historic district." The Category:Historic districts in Indiana is not appropriate. Cuppysfriend (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Cuppysfriend's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. --Cuppysfriend (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Council Grove HD

Hmm, interesting; I'd gone by the address only without checking the coords. Thanks for the correction. I'll get back to you after I look at the Kansas State Historical Society's website: they have pictures and nomination forms for most sites. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the coords — they don't reflect the location of any of the six contributing properties. See here for the nomination form — everything's along the highway downtown except for one set of Santa Fe Trail ruts well east of the city. Perhaps the coords represent a compromise of all the coords for all six CPs? At any rate, Council Oak in the picture you found is one of the contributing "properties". Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Vardy Community School

On January 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vardy Community School, which you nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons talk

I don't know if you receive notifications about messages on your Commons' talk page, but I've left you a note there regarding the categorization scheme of NRHP files on Commons. Killiondude (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning

Some may have unknowingly included Senate of Serampore College (University) and its affiliated institutions in this list. For validity of the Senate of Serampore College (University) kindly refer to the following articles / sites:

• Government of India - Ministry of Human Resource Development

Three Missionaries, Carey, Marshman and Ward started the first Mission college at Serampore in 1818, and 9 years later it received a charter from the King of Denmark empowering it to grant degree.

• The Hindu - National Newspaper of India

In fact, Frederick the Sixth, the King of Denmark, presented a charter to the college on February 23, 1827, with the University status. It was the first college in India to receive this status. ...Almost a century later, the charter was endorsed officially under the Bengal Govt Act IV of 1918.

• The Senate of Serampore College (University) Site

University under Section 2 (f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956

• Article on Ch. Vasantha Rao

...was Senior Visiting Scholar at Harvard University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grbpradeep (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Impartial advice request

Hi Orlady: As you are a neutral party who's worked on the Family Foundation School article for some time, I'd like to ask your input on a question about the program section here; the other neutral editor Sinneed has so far not become involved in that part of the discussion. Thank you in advance for your guidance. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're probably already aware of it, but in case you aren't: the edit that you made here was revered by User:Flyboi9. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh!

Thank you Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at my RFA

Thank you for a very well thought out, heartfelt comment. In general, I do have quite a lot of respect for people who can actually research and write content, but I understand the "walk a mile in his shoes" argument. I'm sorry that you found that AFD annoying; it wasn't my intent (as you obviously know since you're down there in neutral). I'll consider what you said carefully, whether or not the RFA blows up in my face. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are game to try your hand at content, I'd like to suggest that some types of content are easier to create than others. It's much harder, IMO, to write a decent article on (for example) a scientific/technical topic than it is to write an article on (for example) a notable person who has been the subject of multiple published obituaries. In order to "walk a mile in the shoes" of a content creator, I suggest that you try your hand at fixing a problematic article about a topic with a fairly clearly defined scope (such as a person or a company) -- or drafting a new article about such a topic. --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, but I'll probably end up ignoring it :) If/when I try my hand at it, it will probably be a technical topic; the articles in my general area of interest are not in great shape, and I've always felt that someone should really do something about it. If it wasn't for those pesky WP:RS and WP:V policies, I could whip them into shape, just with what I know off the top of my head, but the time associated with collecting and reading references, and (worse) setting aside a block of time to treat it seriously, has eluded me so far.

Perhaps I shall take your comments as an unintended invitation to pester you with writing questions if I ever get around to doing this. In any case, thanks for the advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your spiteful, shitty, uneducated, ignorant, cuntesque, wankbagness

Although I violently insulted you as above, as this is my genuine opinion of your foolish, reactionary actions; I do implore you to actually review my edits rather than relying on "consensus" to scare away editors with thirty years of recognised, published, research experience in the relevant field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.166.36 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew that journals published research by recognised experts who use IP addresses for names! This is a brave new world, in which responsible adults with reputations to uphold use names like 79.97.166.36 and express themselves with what used to be called "off-color" language. --Orlady (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I confess that the next-to-last one was new to me. - Sinneed 22:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a portmanteau word, probably newly created by the anon, combining a well-known four-letter vulgarism with the word ending "esque." --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Orlady! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 19 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Keith Buckley (actor) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... That's actually content that I rescued from Keith Buckley, where User:Dr. Blofeld had created it and another user had overwritten it with content about a different person by the same name. I'll alert Dr. Blofeld to this concern. --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bethel Valley Church

Is there a way to get to this church? A rather imposing checkpoint was blocking Bethel Valley Road, coming from the north. Bms4880 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no public access. I'll take some pictures there some time. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! Bms4880 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Task is complete. (Thumbnail inserted here -- and on county National Register list.) --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"I have a camera, but I'm not particularly interested in photographing historic properties" — I guess you are occasionally, however :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You caught me! As it happens, that's the only self-made picture I've ever uploaded to Misplaced Pages. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha :-) Will this be the first of many such pictures, or is it more likely to be the first and the last? Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not likely to be the last, but I expect that my contributions will be few and far between. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The photo looks great. I'll just ignore the second half of the above statement and assume you'll be getting the Jones House, Freels Cabin, and that last checking station, which are all about 5-10 minutes from the church. Bms4880 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be, but I'm not going to promise anything. Access to Freels Cabin is more restricted than access to New Bethel Church (it's not behind an "imposing checkpoint", but it's behind fences with locked gates. I'm pretty sure I know the building listed as the Jones house, but not completely sure (and it's not real easy to get to, but it's not restricted access). The checking station is on a major thoroughfare, but that means it takes some effort to find a safe place to photograph it from. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning - Focus on the Content

In reference to your recent posts on the Family Foundation School talk page:

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboi9 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the section and see no failure to wp:assume good faith, nor violation of wp:no personal attacks. While I understand the frustration of the person using this wp:single purpose account, these warnings seem inappropriate.- Sinneed 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos?

Just curious — do you have a camera? You're active enough with WP:NRHP, but I almost never see new pictures for Tennessee, except for ones from User:Bms :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

You've messaged what I guess would be whatever Misplaced Pages tracks this computer as. My edits have been few and very minor. I don't understand how correcting grammar can result as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reluctant Zero (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are talking about a message that I placed on the talk page for an anonymous IP. If the message wasn't recent, it probably was intended for somebody else who was previously assigned that IP. (I speak from experience. A few weeks ago, I was notified of a warning message on "my" talk page. When I clicked on the notification, I realized that my login had just expired, and I was looking at an IP user talk page with a vandalism warning that had been sent roughly 2 years earlier to whoever was assigned the IP at that time.) If it was more recent, give me more details about the message and I'll try my best to respond intelligently... --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Inuvik Boot Lake

Hi Orlady, I have responded to your concerns over at T:TDYK. Are you able to give it another look? Thanks! JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgewater Vandalism

They (gnative)are back at it(vandalism) on the Edgewater article, Jefferson High School's article and Denver metro area high schools. This seems like it is going to be a job for an editor to determine what is neutral, fair and accurate for these articles. Thanks for your help. Dbkilo (talk)

Your right,good advice!I assumed it was the same person(s) who've been vandalizing these pages for the last year.Dbkilo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Orlady, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Refactored this message a bit. thanks, hoping to hear from you. Ikip 17:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

personal attack type statements

I just want to register that i consider this edit to be another instance of too-personal, negative commenting by you about me. It is unfriendly at least to challenge me and my interest in CT articles in the way you did there. By the way, out of P, you, and me, I have pretty good reason to believe that you are the one with the least real-life CT experience, by far.

We have gone around on this before, and others certainly do not like to see the personalized contention. Please try to dial back a bit, and I will continue to try in this vein as well. --doncram (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems I exaggerated when I said that was the "umpteenth" time I had pointed out that Connecticut doesn't have "hamlets" (I haven't been nearly as annoying a nag about this topic as I thought!), but I am still plenty tired of your contemptuous attitude toward certain topics and the contributors who care about them. For the record, here are two previous places where I commented on the absence of "hamlets" in Connecticut:

• 22 October 2009: Additionally, regarding your comments on point 6, if this proposal is specific to Connecticut, it should not use the word "hamlet," as that is a geographic term that is not used in Connecticut.
• 27 October 2009: Please stop using the word "hamlet" to refer to Connecticut villages, neighborhoods, and sections of town. The word "hamlet" is used in some U.S. jurisdictions, but not Connecticut.

Additionally, you have repeatedly attacked the use of the word "section" in discussions of Connecticut places -- and you have attacked Polaron for using that word. On 10 January 2010 at Talk:Glenville Historic District, you expressed your negative attitude toward the wikilinked locution "neighborhood or section," which is truly the way areas like Glenville are described in Connecticut. I said: "...The HD article says the HD is in the "neighborhood/village/hamlet" of Glenville and does not link to any of these terms -- I don't know how a reader who does not contribute to Misplaced Pages would receive that, but to me it says that the person who created the article thinks of Glenville as a "something or other" and has not yet bothered to figure out what terminology is appropriate." You replied "I do indeed think of Glenville as a "something or other", and I linked to the article about that topic. It would be nice if you or someone else would figure out what it is..." Comments like that appear to me to be both indications of your lack of knowledge and expressions of contempt toward the topic of places in Connecticut, and cannot understand why a person would insist on controlling articles about topics about which they seem to have little knowledge and much contempt.

As for your statement, "By the way, out of P, you, and me, I have pretty good reason to believe that you are the one with the least real-life CT experience, by far," I interpret it as a notification that you are working on "outing" me. Please use e-mail to communicate any evidence or observations that you wish to confront me with. --Orlady (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh???? I can't speak to your fear or interest or whatever in your being "outed". My request, plainly put, is that you dial back your personalized contention, not for you to repeat it or extend it by new insults here. About hamlets, sections, or villages, whatever, I don't believe there are any authorities present who can dictate that "hamlet"--an English language word which is more precise in some contexts than other ill-defined ones--can or cannot be used to describe any places in Connecticut in mainspace or in Talkspace. As for the mainspace content issues, if you had some authority on that I would be happy to see you add it to the pretty sorry, undocumented article or section on CT towns/hamlets/sections, whatever. I have previously asked once or twice whether you would agree to some more formal mediation/arbitration process to deal with your interactions with me, and you have declined. Please consider my contacting you here to be one more polite enough request for you to stop with personalized, negative comments. I don't wish to contend by email, either, but if you have something pressing to say to me that should not be posted publicly, I guess I would prefer to receive it by email rather than having it splashed publicly. --doncram (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, if you're not working on outing her, then what exactly did you mean by "I have pretty good reason to believe that you are the one with the least real-life CT experience"? That's easily interpreted as "I have information on you." Bms4880 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Having once been the target of a nasty "outing" initiative, I am relieved to know that there was no such intent behind your statement "...Out of P, you, and me, I have pretty good reason to believe that you are the one with the least real-life CT experience, by far." But if you're not investigating me, I can't explain why you said you "have pretty good reason to believe".

You are correct that "hamlet" is a generic term, although in its generic usage it generally refers to very small rural settlements (see the lead paragraph of Hamlet (place)), not to urban and suburban neighborhoods or to villages the size of most of the New England examples. If your use of this term for Connecticut places had been limited to talk page discussions about small unofficial places in general, I would not object to it. However, when you persist in using it as a main noun in the lead sentences of articles whose sources nowhere use this word and in the "official" statement of your "Poquetanuck agreement" -- and complain that you can't make any sense out of language (like "neighborhood or section") that accurately reflects local usage, it suggests the contempt that I have perceived in your comments. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to have some big argument here. This is not a RFC/user on your or my behavior. I have to note irony in your asserting a contemptuous tone in my sometimes labelling a Connecticut place as a "hamlet/section/village/whatever" or equivalent, when I did not myself know how to label it more precisely, or my persisting to do so when others made unsupported assertions about them knowing what it is. Orlady, you are the Wikipedian I have most often seen using apparent sarcasm, which IMO usually equates to showing contempt for others, in Talk page and Edit summaries. And I feel like I am frequently a victim of you heaping contempt in my direction. By this discussion section here, I was giving you notice, calling attention to the fact that I feel your edit in a Requested Move discussion that was otherwise civil, seemed to be crossing a line towards personalized commentary, which, frankly, was contemptuous towards me.

To respond to Bms4880 and anyone else, yes, I do have reason to believe that Orlady has less personal experience in Connecticut than Polaron or myself. You don't have to read anything ominous into that, and your interpreting anything else into it has probably more to do with your own self than anything I intended or anything that most people would interpret. But to spell it out more: it happens that Orlady and Polaron and some others have been discussing Connecticut NRHP article issues over a seven month period now over hundreds of articles and many thousands of Talk page comments. During this, from time to time Orlady and Polaron have made comments about their connections in the state, whether visiting friends in or living in or otherwise having some experience in the state, or having themselves personally seen a "Welcome to X Historic District" sign or not. Often this was in the context of trying to support an argument that their personal knowledge was accurate, despite lack of reliable sources, on some point, or that their personal knowledge was better than someone else's. And I also notice during this when any one of us adds pictures or fails to add pictures or otherwise shows evidence of familiarity with the state. In the seven months of discussion, I have not chosen to try to assert credentials towards winning an argument based on my own personal knowledge regarding Connecticut (or i cannot remember ever doing so). Please consider the fact, though, that I am in a much better position to know the extent of my own Connecticut experience than is Orlady. She also is in a better position to know her own experience, of course. So what if I choose to state my estimation that I have more personal knowledge than she does. I did that by way of responding to her contemptuous comments regarding me and what she believes to be my less-knowledgeable-than-her status. doncram (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the invitation to bet money on this matter, Doncram. That would have been a very inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages.
I happen to interpret your numerous statements about your acknowledged lack of information regarding various Connecticut topics -- for example, your repeated assertions that there is no "downtown Hartford" and your repeated objections to "section of town" terminology (which, BTW, is briefly explained in Administrative divisions of Connecticut#Village, neighborhood, section of town, a section that I think is accurate, although unfortunately it is unsourced) -- as indicating that you have little experience with the state (if you had much experience there, you would know that Hartford has a downtown and that "section of" is a common part of Connecticut parlance).
As for behavior, you have repeatedly labeled me a "bully," yet you have exhibited a pattern of behavior that I consider to be classic bully behavior: in schoolyard terms (it's not hard to see the Misplaced Pages parallels), this involves drawing a line in the sand, saying "I dare you to cross this line," then engaging in some behavior that predictably will incite a "cross the line" reaction by the person challenged -- after which the bully attacks the person who crossed the line (often while crying out "teacher, he hit me!"). I initially got involved in your battles with Polaron largely because I already had some of those Connecticut articles on my watchlist and I noticed behavior that suggested that you had chosen him to be your latest preferred victim. I do not like to stand by idly watching when I see other people getting victimized by bullies. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i understand that your involvement in the CT mess has been partially motivated by your wishing to protect P from what you have perceived and/or characterized as bullying by me. It is similar in some ways to my once taking an interest in responding to what i perceived as bullying behavior by you in another case. As you know, I perceive your determined involvement in the CT mess to have considerably complicated and extended it, while i am sure you disagree. Let's agree to disagree about many things. Please note, i asked you here in this discussion to tone it down about personalized, negative comments. That's all I am asking right now. I am not trying to draw a line which challenges you into making new/more personalized, negative comments, and particularly not in content discussions at Talk pages of mainspace articles. Please note I am trying in this edit to convey acknowledgement at least in terms of saying i hear you saying what you are saying. I have said, now maybe a few times, what i meant to say. I probably won't respond further here. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: George Koval

Exactly what are these sources you are referring to? Changing content without changing sources is misleading and inappropriate. The source I used, namely says "Koval was assigned to Oak Ridge. There, Koval's good fortune seemed only to build on itself, almost like a nuclear reaction: he was made a "health physics officer," charged with monitoring radiation levels throughout the sprawling facility." Someone wikilinked Oak Ridge to the wrong one, but the source says nothing about additional facilities and sites. As to the image, "a calutron is a mass spectrometer..." If you have problems with diction, that's one thing. But unless you bring up these other sources you've consulted, you're performing original research. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 05:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

harassment type edits

Hi Orlady -- I am revisiting your talk page to ask that you please do not follow me around in my edits to new areas, as over the last day or two to Riverview Terrace Historic District‎, an article in progress with an Indiana editor. I believe you follow my Talk page and may be aware of how i responded to a request to help the editor get started. Your interrupting with non-constructive (in my view) edits that I have reverted several times is not helpful. The editor that I have been helping there, also asked you to stop and/or to explain why. There is no explanation worth dragging that editor into.

As I have previously mentioned, I regard your determined involvement in the CT NRHP issues as also generally unhelpful but I am sure will stay involved there, and I am accepting of that. However, this is an extension to a new area, and it seems more like wp:wikihounding than anything else.

I think it is possible we are headed for ARBCOM one of these days. This is my request that you avoid that and stop following me around. You have previously been warned by others, and asked by me, to stop with that. You have alternatively denied and admitted to following me around. Please. --doncram (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I note in an edit summary there u admit to using Rollback, which you have previously instructed me on the appropriate use of. You are an administrator, specifically knowledgeable about Rollback, and you know that it is not appropriate. --doncram (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been searching article space for occurrences of "the district has some significance" and "substantially similar", and I will continue to do so as long as I have the impression that articles are being peppered with meaningless dreck. I consider this content-free placeholder wording ("some significance") and wording that has no discernible meaning in the context and is not supported by any source ("substantially similar") to be tantamount to vandalism. I will defend that view if you insist on taking this to ANI, ARBCOM, or wherever.

As for the rollback, after doing a half-dozen essentially identical "undos" at an hour way past my bedtime, I used "rollback" for the very last one, assuming that you and Polaron were the only audience for my repetitive edit summaries. (As noted, I see this wording as tantamount to vandalism.) Unfortunately, I happened to do that on an article that was also being followed by another contributor. Mea culpa -- slap me with a trout. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An admin who ignores 3RR, how nice. CTJF83 chat 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. I contend that repeated insertion into article space of placeholder sentences like "The district has some significance" (and worse "The district has some significance...") is, for all intents and purposes, vandalism. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think that is vandalism, how did you ever become an admin? "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." CTJF83 chat 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The user who has made those changes (not just in the article that Ctjf83 is interested in) has been told repeatedly why those changes are inappropriate -- and harmful to the integrity of the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well those are the only changes I'm aware of. I agree that more needs to be added to his addition, as to why it specifically is significant. But I don't see it being vandalism at all. And since I know nothing about you two, or your involvement with each other, I can't verify if you are actually harassing him or not. CTJF83 chat 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of history here. For part of it, see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive16#repeated violation of editing restriction. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Either way, it doesn't excuse 3RR violations and false accusations of vandalism. CTJF83 chat 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You have violated the three-revert rule on Riverview Terrace Historic District. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. CTJF83 chat 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, i opened a 3rr violation report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may wish to comment. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Orlady. If you join the discussion at WP:AN3 and promise to stop warring on this article, you may be able to avoid sanctions. I myself am quite discouraged that nothing has worked to calm down this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)