This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
You know, I was happy to walk away from this, but then you decided to go over to Admin Noticeboard and gloat, which displays a contempt for fellow users. You also made no effort to discuss this article's orphan status until after you managed to get me unjustly blocked, which displays bad faith. But you're a jerk, that's obvious but not terribly relevant. If you took a half second to actually read WP:O, you would know that An article is orphaned if fewer than three other articles link to it.
Here's the actual articles that link here: Blue Devils, Old Forge, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, Old Forge Blue Devils Sports. Just squeaks in at three right? Wrong. Because WP:O also contradicts your assertion that dab links count. For the purposes of the strict definition, the following pages do not count toward the three: Disambiguation pages, Redirects, Lists, soft redirects, Discussion pages of articles, Wikipedia pages outside outside of article space
So if we scratch out the dab and the redirect, per guidelines, what's that leave us with? One link. The article fails the definition of WP:O.
I am done with WP becauses of people like you, who only seek consensus after seeking punishment and who willfully ignore guidelines to further your own agenda. You're an ass and I was right. XOXO Tomdobb (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked for repeated violations of our Three-revert rulepolicy (in this case 6-7 depending on the count method) and Civilitypolicy (among other problems, repeatedly calling other edits vandalism, and posting inflammatory vandalism notices). Your diatribe above continues your abusive behavior. Your 24 hour block was reviewed by 3 different administrators. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Orphan is not a guideline, nor has it ever been (to this date). Moreover, the egregiously ridiculous change in definition was made only a few days ago. By that definition, all {{main article}} pages are orphans, contradicting an official guideline: Summary style. They are not!
