User talk:Orangemike/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
A random thought
When I put in the citation from the Wisconsin Historical Society in the article about Jessica Doyle, I realized when her husband leaves office in January 2011, the various external links/citations connecting the Doyles with the official government website-the State of Wisconsin will be inoperable/dead. That is why I prefer citations from the Wisconsin Historical Society. The same can be said about members of the Wisconsin Legislature, US Conress,etc, when they leave office. Just a thought-Hope you are well,your wife&family-Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Third Culture Kids
I put a notice up on the page Third Culture Kids to have it moved to Third culture kid. You deleted the first article but I can't seem to find the article in the new location now... Do you know why? Dismas|(talk) 05:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
How come Third Culture Kids was deleted? This is a good page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.208 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've restored the page. Dismas, please discuss what title is best by listing it at WP:RM (I'm contesting the move as with caps is probably more common). Fences&Windows 16:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
new to this
I am interested in trying to help someone who asked to do so to update his website, and it would appear that I have stepped into a tiger trap, since there appear to be so many and varied protocols necessary to use wikipedia.com.
You mention a conflict of interest, and my "organization." I'm not affiliated with any formal organization. I happen to be a fan of forty years' standing of James Brown's brother, the late (and incomparably talented) Barry Brown, and yes, I have written laudatory articles in praise of his memory, so perhaps you would consider that to be a "conflict of interest?"
However, I have also read James Brown's books (some of which I have reviewed elsewhere)and they are excellent in their own right. Mr. Brown is a college professor, and heads up a Creative Writing program at the University of California - San Bernardino; he has also won the Nelson Algren Award for Short Fiction, as well a a National Endowment for the Arts fellowship in fiction writing, so my liking for his literature is not based upon pure subjectivity. You may see the comments of his fellow authors regarding his upcoming book at the publisher's website. If they have indicated such enthusiastic approbation for his latest work, then the consensus of established writers certainly carries a great deal more weight than the opinion of one fan.
Additionally, I am a little confused about my additions and emendations to the historical data about individuals who happene to be verifiable ancestors. Am I not allowed to update their wikipedia.com sites because of a very remote consanguinity?
I understand about the cites now. Unfortunately, I did not quite know how to do that until yesterday; using wikipedia.com is rather difficult if you don't know exactly how the system works; it seems to be a matter of "learn by doing."
Also, I am sorry that I did not sign my question with the four tildes appended; once again, I didn't quite understand how to use the system. (Frankly, I cannot understand why my instructors at the local college forbid us to cite wikipedia.com as a source for any papers, because apparently there are many rules and regulations in place that wikipedia.com has infinitely more credibility as a resource than they realize.
Actually, I only joined so that I could honor the request of Mr. Brown to change his website, as well as to update the picture of the book there ("The Los Angeles Diaries") to his latest book which will be published this coming year. (He is not so conversant with computers as I am, so I indicated my willingness to help update the website.)
diogenes949Diogenes949 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Need Help
I spent a lot of time writing up a page for the college that I work for (Marion Technical College) but then it was deleted because of a COI. Even though I am employed at the college, I was writing the article from a neutral point of view, relying upon the the school's website for information about it.
What can I do to get this page more robust?
Chapmanmikec1913 (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Chapmanmikec1913
- See discussion at Talk:Marion Technical College. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
spill.com
I would have to completely disagree with your suggestion that Spill.com isn't notable. Under the specific criteria for notability for web content located atWikipedia:Notability_(web), it mentions that only one of the listed criteria must be met for the page to be considered notable. The second listed Criteria for web content goes as follows,"2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Obviously, you must have not read the entire article because there is an entire section dedicated to awards in which it is mentioned that they won the 2009 best podcast for the movies/film section from The People's Choice Podcast Awards, better known as the Podcast Awards. Clicking on the wikilink or going to their website at www.podcastawards.com and scrolling down the page, on the right hand column, will find that Spill.com has won the award. The podcast awards are the preeminent awards for podcasts in the world and are most definitely an organization. Other winners include This American Life and ESPN so it is very feel known, I really don't think there are any disputes of that. Also, user Gogo Dodo has backed this article up in saying that it is notable. On my talk page he has said, " The awarding of a 2009 Podcast Award would qualify Spill.com per the notability guidelines. I have no objections to recreating the article because now the site meets the notability guidelines" and you can visit the top of my talk page to confirm that.Smithers45 (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if that was found inadequate, the page also includes references from 5 different independent, neutral press articles with 4 different publications, 3 of which hail from outside the Austin area which are nerve.com, Wired magazine and acedmagazine.com. This would allow it to be considered notable under criteria 1 of Website notability, "1.The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."Smithers45 (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Solidarity Forever
Hi there, Orangemike. I've been pondering your recent edit and query of Solidarity Forever, and I'll just offer a brief argument. You deleted the following, I gather because you see it as opinion: "Chaplin didn’t write in the chorus “for the IWW makes us strong,” or “for the One Big Industrial Union makes us strong.” He wrote “for the union makes us strong.” That was an oversimplification of his viewpoint, but it makes both for easier singing and for a general relevance today." This seems to me to be a statement of fact. It is relevant, if we are trying to understand the continuing appeal, popularity, and singing of this song (as contrasted say with "The Red Flag," which once had the place of honor of being the first song in the first edition of The Little Red Songbook). Given the material quoted from Chaplin in the paragraphs above it, it is clear that he meant something more than a simple statement "the union makes us strong." He gave it an IWW interpretation (AFL-CIO unions need not apply!).
You ask for references for the statement about "many" singers not singing the full six verses of "Solidarity Forever." (Notice that it is "many," not "most.") One version, that of the Almanac Singers, is cited in the reference note. I've just looked at the iTunes Store listing for "Solidarity Forever." It has 19 recordings (one, Buddy Hallen, appears to be duplicated, so call it 18 versions). How many sing the full six original verses? Short-cut analysis: look at the duration times of each song. Utah Phillips provides a landmark for a full version at 4:29 minutes. Shannon Murray (4:21) we can call full version (including "Greedy Parasite"). Same with Mike Feltin (4:46). Jane Sapp (4:26) mixes classic and new verses so she doesn't count. Same with Anne Feeny (3:50). Three others, at 3:38, 3:39, and 3:42 I'd have to listen to in full. The rest are under three minutes, certainly too little time to sing all six verses plus choruses. Thinking also of singing at meetings, not concerts or other performances, I'd have to say I've never heard all six verses sung by an audience at a meeting (unless led by Utah Phillips). So what do you make of all of this? Do you think we should cite several more examples of short versions? Dwalls (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Carlos Nemer
Hi Orange, what happened to Prof.Carlos Nemer´s article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.38.14.246 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Methinks it is time that this pissing match end. Feel free to add you own input to my report. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Your assistance please
The record shows you deleted Union Beverage Company, placing A7 in the edit summary.
I request userification to User:Geo Swan/review/Union Beverage Company.
If there was a discussion as to whether this article should be deleted would you mind directing my attention to it? Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Commercial Spam on Oil pulling
Can we block this IP? It seems to exist only to spam this article. [1] --BenBurch (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Milwaukeeans
Thanks. I sort of figured that. I will accept your offer should we ever meet in person. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Cuevas/MEDEK Exercises
Why did you delete this page?
I looked at the URL you referenced. It is not copyrighted material. The description of the Cuevas/MEDEK Exercises was written by Jonathan Orgel, PT who is CME-III MEDEK therapist personally trained by Ramon Cuevas, the owner of the "Cuevas/Medek Exercises" trademark and has authorized the creation of this Wikipedia page. see these links [2] and [3]
DORYUKO.COM says this on their site:
"... some data derived from the english version of Wikipedia, ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orgelc (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Orgelc (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mr.Orange. My changes to this page are continually being removed without explanation. The links I am adding are very recent and very legitimate. I know that you've had a similar issue, based on your comments on the discussion page (which have also been deleted for no apparent reason). Any help/resolution you could provide would be very much appreciated. Thank you & happy holidays. DesiBabe (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Cuevas/MEDEK Exercises
Why did you delete this page? I looked at the URL you referenced. It is not copyrighted material.
DORYUKO.COM says this on their site: "... some data derived from the english version of Wikipedia, ..."
As to your new message, this page is not promotional material.
I am not an employee of Ramon Cuevas or his Cuevas/MEDEK Exercises.
Orgelc (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Goodwill Bridge
When moving without leaving a redirect, please check WhatLinksHere for the old title to make sure no links break. I have fixed two links which were shown at Special:WhatLinksHere/Goodwill Bridge,: [4][5]. Both were redirects used in articles. Another thing: You deleted the redirect at Goodwill Bridge to make way for the move but it had a history. 13 May 2005 an article at Goodwill Bridge was merged to Goodwill Bridge, Brisbane. That was later moved to Goodwill Bridge,. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please take call on this
Infinityair (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) Promotional username for Infinity Air and Infinityair Website and and it is the user sole contribution.I fell it is a username violation as Infinityair is promoting Infinityair.Another user feels no.Can You please take a call on this.thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Another admin already removed as a non-violation (and for the record, I was the user who believed it was more of a conflict of interest than a username violation). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm reading the book. Please undelete [or to my userspace]. Thank you. [request fixed by 99.27.134.160 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)] --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You gave this article a PROD2 in September, with the edit summary "no evidence of notabiltiy; vanity spam". An SPA IP has requested undeletion, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored the article; this is to let you know in case you wish to take it to AfD. I have also notified the originally PRODder, but that was an IP who has not edited since September. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You deleted this page, saying it was " (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)", when that is not the case. Statik Selektah is one of the most consistant producers in HipHop music, producing for Bun B, Termanology, M.O.P., Foxy Brown, AZ, and many more of todays contemporary rap artists. You Can google him... its not fair to fans, etc. pls reconsider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.229.240 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
User Empowerment to Begin Aggressive Engagement
User:Tbsdy lives apparently feels he has been empowered to "watch" me, and is construing "watch" as "go after". I say this on the basis of his style and manner of discussion here:
1- Talk:BBC#Clarified_the_BBC.27s_Status_as_Britain.27s_Semi-Official_State_Broadcaster 2- Talk:Art_Bell#Obama_vote 3- Talk:Václav_Klaus&action=edit§ion=10 4 -User_talk:Nothughthomas
He may have been.
If he has not I would plead for you to exercise some type of intervention to bring this situation under control. With great reluctance I almost feel it would be better to perma-ban me at this point rather than let this spiral any further out of control. I've tried earnestly to disengage and retreat from any entry he appears in but he follows me from entry to entry with the apparent single purpose of challenging any content suggestion I make. This is very disruptive to the articles in question. Thank you in advance. Best Regards - Nothughthomas (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
... for the warnings about the Undefeatable article. You appear to have read the user's posts, so sorry. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 03:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike, sorry if I'm not doing this correctly. But I'm a senior in high school and I'm doing an article on the credibility of Wikipedia and I have a few questions I'd like to ask someone who knows more about it. Please let me know if you would like to help me! Thank you! -Reportinggrl91 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reportinggrl91 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
misty edwards
- Conversation over the deletion of misty edwards article (jan 7, 2010)
Article contains no sources or indication of notability, and is entirely promotional. Also I believe it's a recreation of a deleted article. Speedy delete. SuaveArt (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Comment: Previous deletion was a G7 speedy, more than a year ago, so there's no prejudice against recreation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The Page was created today...I had included a "new page" inclusion at the top, I need more time to make in encyclopedic. Misty is a very known artist and this article has reason to exist. Suggestions on how to make it better are very welcomed. She has much notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Comment as with the IHOP article, if the creator can provide a printed review in a mainstream christian publication, or a notable fringe christian publication, that would help. so far, its all online, downloadable, low distribution stuff. i could not find anything myself. ill wait and see, but we need more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I can make that happen in the next few days, I would also like outside help on formatting suggestions -travisharger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
did you even read the conversation?
I had stated personally that i would fix the page in the next few days...and find more references, Misty is a very well known christian artist....why the quick deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Itunes, Relevant magazine, other Christian websites...aren't out side of her congregation? also it was listed with a newpage flag.....All i asked for was 2 more days.-travisharger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- In the coming weeks I will be working on a new article about Misty Edwards..is there anything specific you would be looking for? particularly in format.Travisharger 05:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)
- Verifiable information from reliable sources showing her as notable in her own right, properly footnoted per WP:CITE. ("Shared the stage with a notable person" is the old notability as contagion fallacy.) iTunes sales rankings are ephemeral and don't prove much of anything. Where are the footnotes to notable publications (not blogs, congregation websites, etc.)? Also: watch the florid language. This is not an ad or a review; it is an accumulation of provable facts. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
I know you were just doing your job, but thanks for keeping the speedy deletes clean. Now if there was only a way to purge the pages from Google's cache. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You made a Mistake.
The most commonly used term in the English sources is Mother Sayamagyi and not Mya Thwin. See: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions. The original page was always Mother Sayamagyi and it was moved with no discussion.
My efforts to Restore things were rewarded with a warning from a bot because I accidentally blanked the redirect which was not my intention. I was simply trying to revert a move that was not discussed. Also, as far as I am aware, no sources refer to Mother Sayamagyi as Mya Thwin.
Therefore, according to Wikipedia naming conventions, the page Mya Thwin is wrongly named/titled. See: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions.
As far as I can ascertain, Mother Sayamagyi is never referred to as Mya Thwin in any of the sources, but always as Mother Sayamagyi or simply Sayamagyi. Therefore, the correct title of the page is Mother Sayamagyi
English language sources are: Art of crossing cultures, by Craig Storti; The Middle way, Volumes 71-72; The way to ultimate calm: selected discourses of Webu Sayadaw; The Buddhist directory: United States of America & Canada;
Mysticeditor (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Shaiya
Hi. I came across Shaiya and was wondering if there was a particular reason why you didn't delete it after it was recreated following deletion by four different admins including yourself. There are no reliable sources that I can find but you might know more of the background than me.
I've put a challenge up on the talk page to find one reliable source or I'm going to merge it into Aeria Games and Entertainment. Looking forward to your thoughts before I go ahead. GDallimore (Talk) 12:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's one solution. Thanks, I guess! :) GDallimore (Talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Misty Edwards
You speedily deleted this article on the grounds of a7, no showing of minimal importance. The last version of the article I looked at had a hangon tag; there was also a live AfD on it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Edwards, and the article seemed to have enough references, if not inline citations, to at least warrant a discussion. I'd propose to reverse this, or of course you could do it yourself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I restored the page and moved it to User:Travisharger/Misty Edwards so they can continue to work on it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not only was it under AfD, but I had already declined this speedy. Please do no do things like this again. I'm intending to restore this article. Please let me know if you have a problem with that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- With respect, you were out of order to delete this and bypass the AfD discussion. The subject is notable and the article was being worked on. In future, please let the wider community make decisions like this. Sidefall (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still dubious about the validity of the assertions; but you seem to be in consensus with a number of editors who feel I overstepped my bounds on this case. Consider me duly chastised, and be assured that I am taking note of the messages from my colleagues here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Orangemike! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Kevin Smith (editor) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Peter James Spielmann - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Gérard Longuet - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Earle S. Banks - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That was fast, which i appreciate
I have no idea as to what the range of the block might be. How would I find out? Oddly enough, since I posted at the admin board I discovered this clip [6] of me, talking about wikipedia and administrators - among things. An odd coincidence, or something. Carptrash (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Here we go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.138.224 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. WRONG
I can edit, so I'd have to be at the library to get the exact message. At the time I was not concerned with the exact wording but with . .... other things. I will be back at the library Friday (if not sooner) and will try then. Hopefully it will be a moot question by then. Carptrash (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)- It's probably on the library's range; I wondered why on Earth your home account would be affected, and got a "No matching items in log" message when I checked. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea what a "No matching items in log" might refer to, but trust that it is meaningful to you. The internet world in my part of northern New Mexico is a strange place. After being blocked at the library I came home and discovered that I could not edit here while not signed in. So I was wondering if all of Rio Arriba county was blocked or what. Now I am unblocked here, so maybe at the library too? Time will tell. Carptrash (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the message I get when I try to edit at the library, and probably the one I will get tomorrow when I try to sign up a new editor.
Secure login You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from 98.23.192.0/19 has been disabled by Dominic for the following reason(s):
CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address (or network) has been used abusively.
This address (or network) has been blocked temporarily or permanently to prevent further abuse.
In extreme cases, an entire network may be blocked to prevent an abusive user from continually changing their IP address in order to evade blocks or abusing multiple accounts. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please follow these instructions.
Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed.
Users: If you already have an account in good standing, you may request IP block exemption to bypass this block. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.
This block has been set to expire: 07:53, 11 January 2010.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail.
Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.
thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Service awards proposal
|
Hello, Orangemike/Archive 12! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.
If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
Alan Heston
Hi Orangemike, this is Ben, formerly of Resumerenovators -- I agree with your comments on the Alan Heston page and the request that Resumerenovators change its user name. I've changed my user name to BenZee37 and made a number of changes to the Alan Heston page. Can you provide additional feedback? Thanks! BenZee37 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)BenZee37
Hi Orangemike, I understand why the Resumerenovators user name was blocked. It makes complete sense. That said, I've created a new user name and made changes to the User:Resumerenovators/Alan_Heston page. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mind taking a minute to review it and provide any other feedback you may have. I'd love to be able publish the User:Resumerenovators/Alan_Heston article. Thanks! BenZee37 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)BenZee37
Citation style
"It is improper to include a reference from an intermediate source in a Wikipedia page without stating so. For example, on a Web page, you might find some information that is attributed to a book. Unless you examine the book yourself, your reference is then the Web page, not the book. You should, in turn, make it clear in the reference that the Web page cited the book."
This is a direct quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources. As a writer, I cannot say I am happy with this, but it is the situation that prevails. If you can get it changed, I will willingly change. In the meantime, I list every book so cited in the References section of the article.
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"Unless you examine the book yourself, your reference is then the Web page, not the book." That's not my reasoning; that is the reasoning of the administrators. It's pretty clear. If you should manage to get this policy changed, please let me know.
In the meantime, when I Google a webpage of a book, I feel that the above policy applies. BTW, what policy can you quote to back your approach? (Which I might mention, I have used in the past, and prefer to use.) Georgejdorner (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If your distinction is based on a Wikipedia policy instead of Mike's opinion, I will be glad to follow it. If the distinction is based only on Mike's opinion, then I face the prospect of following the next administrator's opinion/whim/interpretation when the same questioning reoccurs. And it does. Boy, does it. Unlike about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, mine are always fully cited; yet, I have dealt with a long line of complaints about my citations. It seems that the more effort I put into it, the more criticism I draw.
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Mike,
That was a neat steer into a reasonable resolution. You have my sincere thanks for it. If there is an award for Adroit Wikipedianism, you richly deserve it.
Georgejdorner (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm elated that it worked so well. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I have reviewed and ammended the Brand Tribalism page and hope you have a minute to review it. Thank you very much for your feedback. Additional references have been supplied. I have numerous other references to the term but feel that it may be an overkill to have more than 4 references for such a short stub. Thanks again.
Jozette Heerman (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Dan Nainan
There seems to be some argument between us over Dan Nainan age. The reader digest says one thing the New York time walk street journal say another. But the fact speeks for them selves if you need proof of his age proof beyond dispute. Please conteact me before changing age. I can be conteacted at [email protected] Thanks 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdypunkkid (talk • contribs)
Nerdypunkkid - why did you create a second Dan Nainan page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nerdypunkkid/dannew DesiBabe(talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
Actually, it appears you also created a third Dan Nainan page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan_Nainan DesiBabe(talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
Hey! I noticed you had written something on the talk page on the Nobel Prize article some time ago. I am currently revamping the article and could really need more hands with copy-editing etc. If you got any time I would be grateful if you could help with something :) If you don't have time with any editing I need some opinions on the talk page on the History section; if you could look there I'd be very grateful! --Esuzu 16:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)
Racebending and beyond
Thanks for your support of my speedy delete of Racebending, I've also cleaned up Yellowface from the ridiculous amount of references made to "racebending" and the Airbender movie. I'd like your input on the Isaac Jin Solstein article; very fishy, written by some of the same contributors, I was tempted to do a speedy delete but would like a second opinion. Thanks, AshcroftIleum (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) and you also deleted any actual proof they had on controvery. in fact, the whole controversy section is gone from the last airbender article. very fishy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvercell2 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I will take over the making of a Racebending page and it's use in Yellowface and The Last Airbneder from here on out. I'm an unbiased, source driven editor who is also one of the first supporters and regular member of the Wikipedia NYC (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City) group. If fan edit wars continue to exist on said articles (such as rampant deleting and editing) I will communicate this problem to the rest of Wikipedia NYC and the Wikimedia Foundation on Wikipedia Day NYC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC). And none of us want that do we? -- Sidepocket (talk January 20, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC).
Historical Usage of Race-bending
Racebending: Historical usage
The examples below. Race-bending term was used long before the casting for The Last Airbender. Published from 2004 decribing school children to 2009 with Robert Downey Jr. I think the racebending should be re-instated, even with the hyphen added. From these various sources, I believe they would be notable and reliable.
Books
The Bedford Introduction to Drama and The Compact Bedford Introduction to Drama, Fifth Edition. 2005
http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/jacobus/default.asp?s=&n=&i=&v=&o=&ns=0&uid=0&rau=0
Race and Othello:
http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/jacobus/content/cat_960/RaceAndOthello.htm?v=category&i=00960.01&s=00960&n=99000&o=
[Patrick Stewarts complicated and race-bending performance as Othello. ] http://www.curtainup.com/dcnov2.html#Othello Race-Reversed.
Race Bending: "Mixed" Youth Practicing Strategic Racialization in California. 2004
Race Talk Dilemma in an American School by Mica Pollock.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120129732/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/pollock10012003.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=v6uf-LNCtCcC&pg=PT35&lpg=PT35&dq=racebending&source=bl&ots=tWcKVWLUbV&sig=tyfzhOdTgPCp6zZhE3tB2I_ypqg&hl=en&ei=SWlJS8qVF4rw0gTrrdnrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAzjoAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Racists Beware: Uncovering Racial Politics in Contemporary Society
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9789087902773&
[In RACISTS BEWARE: UNCOVERING RACIAL POLITICS IN THE POSTMODERN SOCIETY, Dei identifies and subjects to close scrutiny the new race-bending logics of what he calls "postmodern" societies]
Robert Downey Jr. And Tropic Thunder:
http://poptimal.com/2009/12/sherlock-holmes-jolly-good-show-chaps/ December 20, 2009 [Add the insane race-bending antics of Tropic Thunder and now his triumphant embodiment of Sherlock Holmes ]
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213599,00.html Costar Praises Robert Downey Jr. for Race-Bending Role By Tiffany McGee Friday July 18, 2008 07:35 PM EDT
Newspapers, Magazine, Journal Publications
New York Times 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/arts/television/30heff.html Published: September 30, 2006 And the race-bending women of “The Game” have been written that way for a reason.
Variety 2006 http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117930367.html?categoryid=33&cs=1 Cloud 9 - Apr. 30, 2006, 2:26pm PT [This parodically patriotic, paternalistic, homophobic Victorian world is tilted by the gender- and race-bending casting required by the script:]
LexisNexis® Quicklaw™ Civil Litigation Essentials
LexisNexis is one of the top 13 background check screening companies in the U.S
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=86+Denv.+U.L.+Rev.+709&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=8d7bd5c76700a12fe3af60e5d0c9db28
[theorizes that Obama's success may actually have a gender- and race-bending effect, by removing stigma from "the ...]
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences Transnational Media Literacy Analytic Reflections on a Program With Latina Teens Lucila Vargas University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://hjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/267 [In one session, I probed my finding about what I call “race-bending rac- ... race-bending racism well. I used it to probe my idea.]
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-12-09/arts/opening-nights-pnb-s-nutcracker/ Race-bending skin colored shirts and afro wigs.
Nemogbr 16:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemogbr (talk • contribs)
- What happened? The racebending article has been restored (no mention anywhere on talk page that it had been recently deleted) and the article itself was made ten times worse by conflating and confusing a dozen different issues (Tiger Woods?!?!? Obama?!?!?). The insanely bad writing brings tears to my eyes, and a certain overzealous editor (however well-intentioned) is, in my humble and biased opinion, doing a massive amount of damage to several articles. I'm really out of my depth here and currently don't have much time on my hands to deal with this, I don't mean to throw all this at you, but do you know any wikipedians who might be interested in stepping in? (Or am I overreacting?) AshcroftIleum (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Brenda Jean Patrick
Dear Orange Mike,
I have seen your comments regarding my proposed article regarding Brenda Jean Patrick. Please tell me changes you think should be made to make her bio acceptable.
Captaincorgi (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Captaincorgi (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Brenda Jean Patrick
Dear Orange Mike,
As I have noted elsewhere--but maybe where you will not see it--I created this article because of the work Ms. Patrick has done at schools in Texas (including the Pathways alternative school in Sherman/Denison, where I have been a volunteer for many years).
No, she is not a media celebrity, but I have seen the work she has done at the aforementioned school and other school system throughout Texas to give parents and students a voice in how school administrators treat kids.
Please let me know what needs to be done to make the article acceptable in your eyes.
Captaincorgi (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Brenda Jean Patrick
Dear Orange Mike,
I appreciate your comments related to neutrality.
As a result,I have removed all information related to my knowledge of Ms. Patrick and her work and limited the content to information that can be verified in third-party newspaper accounts.
Please see if this shortened version resolves your objections to the article.
Captaincorgi (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Username block
Can you please justify the username block on User:Baghdada? The editor is annoying, but how is the name of a town promotional or representing an organisation? Fences&Windows 21:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seemed to me that the editor was using it in the standard spamusername to promote a town, rather than some other corporative entity. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly good riddance to him, but it's just some guy called Adil Shah from Mardan (self-outed), not apparently connected to any town body. Fences&Windows 01:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- If he'd called himself AdilFromBaghdada or AShahFromMardan, that would have been fine. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly good riddance to him, but it's just some guy called Adil Shah from Mardan (self-outed), not apparently connected to any town body. Fences&Windows 01:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Ajahn Brahm
Why did you add a notability tag to a world-famous Buddhist teacher and author? Perhaps I'm missing something. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- He was cited as an example of a non-notable in a deletion argument (of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ilk). I noticed that this article, created by an admitted votary, has been up for three years and still is almost totally without sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Who cited him as an example of a non-notable bio? They are not only wrong, but misinformed about policy. Ten seconds on Google shows more than enough reliable sources. Does anyone do any research around here? Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's a field in which I don't pretend expertise. Please turn some of those googlehits into actual references, if you do have some background in this area. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Who cited him as an example of a non-notable bio? They are not only wrong, but misinformed about policy. Ten seconds on Google shows more than enough reliable sources. Does anyone do any research around here? Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday
Greetings. I noticed that you semi-protected the Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday. Did you mean to set indef protection? I also noticed that you had some prior involvement with the article. I suspect there is no firm policy, but I've always felt it wise to refrain from using admin privileges to act on an article where I am otherwise involved, especially in the case of a content dispute. Of course I see that this is also a case of edit warring and 3RR, so the action in itself was justified. Oh, and congratulations on (almost) six years of contributions. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- In this case, there was sockpuppetry, WP:CIV violations (anti-semitic insult), and Holocaust denial involved. The duration should be fixed, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 10:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
DoggyRide article is rewritten
Please review the rewritten article on the DoggyRide brand as it has been rewritten. Please reconsider deletion. It definitely adds to the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmontare (talk • contribs) 05:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
99th Wisconsin Legislature
All the members of the present Wisconsin Legislature now have articles! Yeah!!!! BaronLarf and I took care of it. A minor mystery-some one did the Democrats but left the Republican for some reason. I hope you and your family are doing well-RFD (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alas, I'm stuck at a Microtel outside Charlotte, N.C.'s airport, trapped by rainstorms on my way back from Chattacon. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Only 2 more to go in the 98th Wisconsin Legislature. The one that were done were Democrats no Republicans- the mystery continues why start all the articles of members of the Wisconsin Legislature who are Democrats and leaves the Republicans? Also I have been working on articles of members of the Wisconsin legislature who were pioneers in the 19th century. This is very interesting. Hope you made it back.Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
GetJar
GetJar was created before, and is now protected by admin. Can you help me get it unprotected or help me identify the admin who can/should? Thanks. Mathiastck (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've replied to Mathaistck, and am prepared to unsalt the title. As Mathiastck hasn't edited the previous incarnation, I'd say they want to create a new version, hopefully without breaking copyright or being advertorial in charachter. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Christina Katrakis
Hi. You deleted an article I was working on for this artist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Katrakis. I am her publication agent and I am attempting to create a page at her request. The copy she provided for use was tagged as copyrighted material. This material is from her website at http://www.christinakatrakis.com. I can change this copy, but the basic info included in it cannot be modified. Can you please provide me with some direction as to how to create a page and not have it deleted in the process of me editing it? Also, I will need to use information from her site as this is the information available. We can provide whatever permission is required by Wikipedia. Steventrotter (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I work on the article here (User:Steventrotter/Christina Katrakis) and then move it when I am done? I thought this was the case, but it was deleted as well. How is one supposed to create a "draft" article if they get deleted? I wasn't even able to get the references online before it was deleted. Her artwork is in the private collections of persons such as Barack Obama and Brad Pitt and she is currently working on a film with Mary Lambert. Here is a recent article about her and her work in the Commercial Appeal: http://www.gomemphis.com/news/2010/jan/24/painful-prism/. These are just a few examples. Steventrotter (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Louis D. Brandeis AZA 1519
Hey Orangemike,
this is Berniematt, you put my page Louis D. Brandeis AZA 1519 up for speedy deletion, which i thought was unnecessary The page did not have much on it because i was gathering info about the history of the chapter i wanted to create the page so i could have a baseline, that i could add onto I also dont understand the reasoning behind the deletion: it was not notable? That does not seem to be a valid reason, an encyclopedia gives information on everything, i mean why is an article on Derek Jeter notable
Thank you for listening and i hope to hear from you soon, -- BernieMatt 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniematt (talk • contribs)
Oakwood issue
Thank you for the note back to me. I am spending some time thinking about this article of mine. Here the company has taken action. I ask myself what kind of action is notable. If I donate $1,000,000 dollars we can agree that this is notable. However, if I give one dollar to a homeless man, is this notable? Is it notable if I too only had the one dollar that I give away? I'm not sure where the line gets drawn at the low end of the spectrum when a notable act is not as grand as something that is easy to recognize as being notable. To me... I think of notable as being applicable in my article since the action taken here was one designed to help with the revitalization of downtown New York City in the aftermath of 9/11. I think that any company that has taken action to help preserve a city in the face of mass destruction is to be recognized as notable.Hotsummer 9 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
NIF article
Hi Orangemike, I'm not sure if you hit the mark with this edit, your summary says you're reverting two edits but the diff itself seems to only show one edit reverted. Anyway, having reviewed this a bit, I'm fine with the way the article has ended up. The Campbell resignation bit probably shouldn't be in there, it's unrelated (except there was obviously a whisper campaign and the project was conceived as part of the US nuclear-weapon program which is, umm, contentious). As far as the management angle, I don't think it's the first time someone gave a really good scientist a billion dollars and said "build a vast facility that works just like your laboratory experiments" then felt betrayed when it didn't work out. I commented on the article talk page. As far as a completely new editor showing up with a mission to correct a perceived injustice, well, bears watching. Once they finally got down to their actual point though, I agree from the BLP aspect of things. Franamax (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Was the deletion of the above part of a vanish request? I wasn't aware that U1 covered one's main talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:TPS. The user's rationale for the U1 tag was "leaving", which can be perceived as a good faith RTV request. FWIW, the user has made no subsequent edits on that account, so as far as we can tell, they have kept to their word. If they ever resumed editing, the talk page would have to be restored. JamieS93 14:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I saw nothing to inhibit complying with a U1 request in apparent good faith. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Orange Mike. You added a number of tags to the the Bob Childress article that say to refer to a discussion on the talk page that has not been started yet. In particular you added a notability tag and a "not neutral" tag. I may be missing something here. Is it possible you created those tags in order to have people come to the article and further develop it? Or is there a problem with the article. If there is can you please elaborate? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- See my notes on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if you saw the two articles from the Roanoke Times that are a major source of the article. Here is one of them: ^ http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/wb/xp-94728 Roanoke Times, Dec 9, 2006. This seems secular enough for me. What do you think? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Privacy
I deleted my old login name for privacy concerns. All I did was delete any reference to my name. The content of the article can be kept. Please suggest another remedy. Is there any way to just copy the current edits in the article section? All of the edits I took out are in the discussion section, and do not pertain to the substance of the article at all. I am the author of this article, and I may suggest to delete it, and then repost. Wikipedia must have a mechanism to protect users if they make an edit using a personal name. Thanks. Yellowdoglady (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
IT's not the content, just my old username which I wanted deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdoglady (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that editors (like you) have no way to protect privacy concerns? More specifically, are you saying there is no way to utilize an editor code to redact the name? For example, if someone stole an indivdual's identity and created a wikipedia page using their social security number as their name, you would not edit it out? Yellowdoglady (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- For something serious like use/abuse of a Social Security number or revelation of inappropriate personal information by a child, there is a process called "oversighting" (which I am not empowered to do, as it is a power granted to only a tiny number of individuals). There is no such issue here that I can see, but perhaps I don't understand your concern clearly (I'm only human). For further information on oversighting, go to WP:OVERSIGHT; for information on how to make a request for oversighting, go to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Unblock on hold
Hey, I was thinking of denying this unblock request as stale, allowing him to submit a new one when he "returns" - I see no ability to e-mail him separately, and Dec 10 seems like so long ago ... ideas? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
B'nai B'rith Girls
Orangemike - Thank you for your interest in the article B'nai B'rith Girls. The revision history indicates that you deleted the page on January 26 at 01:59 under CSD Criteria G12. I agree with your indications of copyvio.
However, as G12 notes, "earlier versions without infringement should be retained." I can no longer view the article history, but I believe the earliest versions of the article contained bare facts and were not a copyright violation -- or that the earlier versions could have been easily rewritten to remove any copyright violations.
The first instruction in the attention box at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems also asks that "For blatant copyright infringements: If there is a clean revision in the page history, revert to it."
Since I believe you have access to the earliest versions, can you please re-create the page with the latest revision that did not include significant copyright violations or that could be easily rewritten?
Thank you. --Infoman99 (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
question about living person bio
Hello Orangemike,
Thank You for Your opinion regarding my article at Wikipedia concerning Michal Bucko. I have used many tips to improve this article and made an effort to find many reference. I also made it shorter and with less external links (and made them outside the article in the added section). I have improved it significantly. Hope You could take a look at it and tell me what I could improve next.
Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
blocked users, no template given?
Hey, is there a reason you didn't put a block template on User talk:Foxheadinc and User talk:Foxheadinc123? tedder (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
conflict of interest
Hi Orange Mike - I'm glad you have become involved in this issue. I am the Deputy Headteacher and keen that accurate information (ie: the same information that exists in public domain and is cited by me) is displayed - there shouldn't need to be a conflict of interest. I believe the previous edit also to be by a user with conflict of interest (and have good reason to believe this). My point is that the previous version is untrue - factually. I would appreciate a neutral edit using only currently available information with no POV description - are you able to do this?
Paulsnorman (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
addendum to above
Sorry - just noticed that there does seem to have been an effort made to make the article more neutral but there is still a key inaccuracy. The school has improved from 40% - 62% (that is not a decline) The improvement to 45% is a seperate measure the first does not include english and maths, the second does - In 2007 the school was 27% (on the second measure)which is why it was identified as National Challenge, in 2008 and it hit 30% and 2009 was 45%. I had linked new citations to that fact in my previous edit. In no statistical definition can it be said that a school that has moved from 40% - 62% via steps upward each year - can be declining it is patently improving and that is supported by the inspectors comments.
due to your concerns about conflict of interest I won't change this myself - but at present it is inaccurate and does not met wiki validity and accuracy objectives.
Paulsnorman (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- See my advice on your talk page. I have protected the page temporarily from anonymous edits until the disputes can be cleared up. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks
thanks for the counseling and support - have followed your suggestion and posted a public domain referenced validation of my argument for neutral editors to review - I hope someone does! I'll do this for each element - some of references are hard to locate on UK government sites!
Paulsnorman (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Username block of User:Fireworksbygrucci(company name)
Hi Orange. Can you block the above referenced name because of the rule against company name usernames. They are cutting and pasting information onto Fireworks by Grucci from the company website. I’m sympathetic to what they’re trying to do but I don’t think they understand. I should probably learn how to do this myself. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Can you also block User:KCI Airport for the same reason (they're posting to Kansas City International Airport). Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for acting so quickly! Thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Hello Orangemike, Moonriddengirl has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- This isn't so much chain happiness. Nobody has smiled at me in a while (on Wikipedia, I mean. I still live in the South that spawned me; I get smiled at all the time), and it's naught to me whether you pass it on or not, but I haven't spoken to you for a while. I saw your username and felt like saying hello. Hello. :) Hope things are going well for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Reconstruction
You're misinterpreting. I was not talking about the racial issues; my discussion was how, while the Republican Party of 1865-1876 was racially progressive, their pro-business stances and corporate agenda were similar to that of the modern G.O.P. I'm glad you had ancestors who fought for the Union from the south; I didn't, but I understand that side fully -- why fight someone else's war over an issue you don't care about, and why be oppressed by Memphis (or Wilmington, or Charleston, etc) slaveholders. The Party of Strom Thurmond, et. al would have a lot more in common, in terms of economic policy, with the Reconstruction Republicans than they would withe the Reconstruction Democrats. This is really beside the point. The point is that the high-school adage that "the G.O.P. of 1865 is now the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of that era is now the Republican Party" is simplistic, and frankly, ignorant. Cdtew (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Further, that was from a short statement of what changes I intended to make to the article; look at the edit history, and look at the discussions I had with others concerning it. The change is meant to clarify a popular public misconception. Example One: The Democratic Party of the era was parochial and anti-industrialization, even to the point of believing an encroachment tax on incoming industry (as industry and modern free enterprise systems were seen as "northern"). The Republicans, for the most part, were extremely free-enterprise in their economic beliefs, and were extremely in favor of corporate welfare, which, if you're as liberal as you sound, you'll agree are "insidious" traits shared by the modern GOP.
Specifically as it regards race, most Reconstruction Republicans still had a very traditional view of race; Strom and Helms and Lott weren't out there advocating a return to slavery; maybe David Duke was, but as you'll recall, he held office as a Democrat, not a Republican.Cdtew (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No offense taken, I'm a little easily offended sometimes, I guess. My fault. I've done a large amount of research and reading, and what I think is key and central is that Reconstruction Republicans thought two to three things would help the black race: 1) the free market, 2) property ownership, 3) an industrial/technical education.
I think that these are things you'll find all Republicans agreeing on these days. Reconstruction republican's didn't believe in foodstamps or affirmitive action as a continuing policy; in their system things such as Freedman's Bureau land grants and pay would last for only the generation of former slaves, at which point the industrial enterprises brought to the south would take over as the main sources of pay and sustenance for blacks. Also, in the South today the Democratic party is still the party of protective farming and crop price supports, which are policies seen 100 years ago by Reconstruction Republicans as tools for preventing agriculturally-employed Blacks from controlling their own destinies.Cdtew (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I sympathize with you; I'm a republican because I am a center-right individual. Unlike the tea-partiers and Ron Paulies, I believe in a certain amount of government that is, as Goldilocks would have it, "just right". Maybe that's why I'm intent on pointing out the fallacy that I described above. However, my allegiance to my party bears a caveat, that being that both parties are full of shit. Look at N.C. -- the Republicans deserve elected office because merely because the Democrats here are corrupt as hell, with the same cabal (literally the same leaders) running the State Legislature since 1980, and with a former Governor on the verge of indictment, not to mention John Edwards.Cdtew (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
SHAWN CHAPMAN HOLLEY
Dear Orange Mike: Thank you for your comments re my article. Can you please tell me how, or if it is even possible to get Shawn’s bio on Wikipedia. Should someone besides me submit it? If it were to contain something different than what is on the kwikalaw.com website, would that work? Also, there are many attorneys on Wikipedia, can you share with me the difference between her and them (besides those comparable to Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., or Thurgood Marshall). Thank you for your time. Jentry71 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request
FYI: This editor has requested unblocking. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Mike, Just a thanks, a real big thanks for coming by and looking at this new article. I have done some work to it and I would appreciate further castigation when you have time. I intend to put a picture in when I can get one.
best
Richard Avery (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
When you have a moment...
Mike, you always have impeccable judgement in these matters, so when you have a mo, would you take a look at Terra Cotta Inn and the discussion on the talk page? Am I way off base here? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Orangemike. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Page almost Identical to another Page / Confusion
Orangemike, I noticed that a page I created was deleted by you and understand the reasons you provided for deleting the page. However, in creating my page, I used an identical format to an existing/established Wikipedia page (George Sexton) in hopes of avoiding any issues. Please provide me with an explanation of how my page for "The Lighting Practice" differs from the page for George Sexton. If the page I created was deleted for the reasons you provided, why is the George Sexton page considered valid? I appreciate your time. Thebrightguy (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Thebrightguy
Laurel
Thank you for the link to the article. You all have been very helpful. Actually I am a stupid person, I used to think giving a laural to students who won a sports competion was something the German school called Gymnasium made up. They sometimes said that this was like in old Greece, but I thought they were kidding us. Thanks to Wikipedia and you and the others, who commented on this I now know better.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Lubov Azria recreated
You pointed out on User talk:Acuffrose that they shouldn't be editing the article, deleted as G11 and now recreated. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, cracking up, this is a supposedly new editor recreating the exact same article. Hard to AGF since it is more or less identical. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you erased this for "being an advertisement for disgruntled fans". the fact is that that happens all the time and is an example of systematic racism. just because the word itself was coined by fans of an anime show doesn't make it any less relevant or true. and if you did your research, you would know that most of the people who joined the movement never even heard of the show until the controversy. it's significant because asian are getting together to stop this the blatent discrimination. you can have pages upon pages of memes, but this isn't acceptable? i call bull. --Silvercell2 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)silvercell2
- You are tacitly admitting that this is a new term (actually, just an obvious word play) used by a small, new and non-notable movement. The article as deleted was inchoate, full of material relating to yellowface, blackface, and other terms which are already notable and have articles about them. Please read WP:RISING. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
"Please don't fall into the recentist delusion that because you have recently discovered this issue, there was no activism around this issue prior to your noticing it." and when did i say this? it had been going for more than a year.--Silvercell2 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)silvercell2
- I don't want to add another section, but I'm a bit confused as to why there is no "racebending" article. yellowface and blackface seems to be of a more historical reference to making an actor play another racial actor in full, where "racebending" seems to be the replacement of ethnicity. The actor would not be playing a black person, rather the character would not be black in a movie where in a book or comic they were originally. This has happened in quite a few movies. Felinius (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- So far nobody has made a case that this is a widely-used term (as opposed to an obvious wordplay on "genderbending" that has spontaneously occurred to more than one writer). If we can start by finding some evidence in reliable sources that this is in fact a notable term or concept, then we can go on from there. So far, I've mostly seen this term used by angry Last Airbender fans indignant about the obvious Hollywood bigotry involved in the miscasting of these Asian characters. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Kathryn M. Drennan and J. Michael Straczynski are divorced
Mike, Kathryn M. Drennan and J. Michael Straczynski were divorced either late in 2007 or early 2008. I've updated JMS's article to reflect a 2008 divorce date. This is something that JMS acknowledge on RASTB5-mod, but is is not well publicized. I will look for Mr. Straczynski's post regarding this matter and provide it as a citation when I have an opportunity tonight. His post should be available via JMSnews. I noticed that you just updated Kathryn M. Drennan's article. You may also wish to update her article accordingly. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed your speedy tag, as it does not clearly apply. It is "Unreferenced, yet not really obviously notable, but not spam; needs reliable citations." Give them 7 days to fix it. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that prodding it instead of speedy deletion is "pampering", LOL, but I get your drift. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
SPI case (Acuffrose)
If you have a minute, would you consider the query here? Thanks. NJA (t/c) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Problem with Block Shopping
I'm really having a very serious issue with User:antiuser. Despite my best efforts he is engaged in lobbying many multiple users against me, as a result of the speedy deletion of a UFO conspiracy article he was engaged in. He's working overtime to flood admin Talk pages with every conceivable complaint and I simply don't have the bandwidth to keep up and jump from page to page to page, 24/7, defending myself. I have no doubt that, if you shop around to enough admins eventually you can get anyone banned on wikipedia. I think my days here are likely numbered and I'm at a loss of what to do. I think an ANI complaint would simply make matters worse as it would lead to more lobbying and "block shopping" and I don't want to reply in kind by "block shopping" because I don't think it's contributive to a positive environment. Nothughthomas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
Frank Zeidler talk page
The Frank Zeidler talk page was edited to having him as alive. He died in 2006 so I change it back. Hope there is no problems. The editing was probably a mistake. Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Gsautter
Greetings. This user has copy and pasted from sites like this, which state at the bottom that "no known copyrights exist." Is that sufficient to satisfy WP:Copyright? The point is almost moot anyways, as the articles (such as Pheidole_picobarva) are way too technical for Wikipedia and need to be completely rewritten. PDCook (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
AfD / Die Antwoord
...be prepared to be bombarded by a barrage of fancruft. Want a preview? See User_talk:Seb_az86556#Die_Antwoord. I gave up on it just a few hours ago. FWIW, I'll vote "del" again, you do the talking :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Wise Use
I'd like to question your recent edits that changed "Wise Use" to "wise use" throughout.
The phrase "wise use" isn't as well known to the public as, for example, "pro-life" or "pro-choice", which Wikipedia uses in lower case. This being the case, I think that it ought to be marked in some way to show that it has a specific meaning apart from the literal meaning of the words. Uppercasing it seems like a way to do that; and in Googling the phrase, I find both versions in common use.
If we must use lower case, then in situations where the phrase is used adjectivally ("WU group", "WU organization", etc.) we should hyphenate it: a "wise-use organization" is an organization that has to do with wise use, whereas a "wise use organization" could be a use organization that's wise. Similarly, a "strong-military advocate" is one who favors a strong military, though he may be a scrawny 98-pounder himself; and a "high-tariff supporter" is distinct from a supporter of tariffs who emerges from the Senate cloakroom red-eyed and giggling and makes a beeline for the salted peanuts...
--Ammodramus (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Pls see my post on BLPN
Thx. 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ted Hopf
Ted Hopf is one of the leading scholars of constructivist international relations theory. You must have been unaware of this when you deleted the article on him. Francium12 01:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of ProductCamp wikipedia page
I would like to question your proposed deletion of this page and ask that you define the criteria for "notable". With regard to the content of the page, if you have suggestions on how I can help to improve it, that would be great as well.
Thanks, Jelgie (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Playground (2009) Tone issue
Hi I've amended the tone and hope it no longer reads like an advertising blurb. Any suggestions for further clean-up in order to get the blurb removed? thanks!
Ekso8 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekso8 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Science fiction conventions
Could you take a look at the recent IP edits regarding "student conventions." Shsilver (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
King Alfred Plan
I apologize for not citing my changes.
However,
THE KING ALFRED PLAN IS REAL - I have seen it, and so has he:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2563393161128046837#
If you can sit through this lecture and tell me it's fictional, then you're stupid.
But, I'll give you more credit than that - so I challenge you to watch this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktheconjurer (talk • contribs) 07:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
______________________
No, it's not fiction - watch the lecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktheconjurer (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Removed prod from UEnd Foundation
Hi Mike, just letting you know that I removed the proposed deletion tag from this article because it was proposed for deletion in the past, and the prod tag was rejected then. I doubt the article would survive AfD, though, so feel free to bring it there. Thanks! -- Atama頭 23:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Gene DeWeese
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I left a note on the talk page, FYI. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your deletion of American Casino Guide Listing
I saw that you deleted this listing and it was for good reason because I don't think it was up to par. However, I believe that there should still be a listing for this publication since it is referenced in 5 other listings. But how do I go about suggesting this become a listing? I didn't see a category for anything at all closely relating to casino gaming. Any Guidance would be greatly appreciated. Also, I'm not even sure if I could write the entry myself since I am one of the editors, it may be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattBourie (talk • contribs) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Replying to note Matt's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Gore Effect
Hi again. the trasnlation has been done already, I shortened it sort of since some of the sources are not accepted in the en WP and as well the "texan sharpshooter" would be a reverse translation. BR --Polentario (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Ivy Page
Hi! This article was created using sound information, and formated according to other acceptable NH Poets. Please see Jennifer Militello. Any help improving this article would be appreciated! Ivylpage (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Reply to your comment
I'm talking about competent admins, not people who sit around at their computers all day waiting to annoy others who have done nothing wrong in a vain attempt to feel some vague semblance of power and control in their lives. I don't know what was going on before, but I do know that since I've been communicating on this page yesterday nobody in this office has vandalized wikipedia, so there is no need for you to continue to send me antagonistic messages. Go ahead and block me or send me some more inconsequential messages if you feel like it, but I won't see it because I am not coming back to use this joke of an encyclopedia ever again and will not be allowing anyone else here to visit non work related websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.121.238 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Reply to your comment
First of all how is adding a high school to a list being favoritist? Milwaukee is a tourist attraction, just as much as Chicago or New York. Thirdly take a look at this link. http://www.eastbrookacademy.org/. In five years your going to here about Eastbrook. I guess I was being a little bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eba123 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
As I'm sure you've seen by now, I created a new category, Category:Wisconsin socialists, to correspond with existing categories on Category:Wisconsin Democrats and Category:Wisconsin Republicans. Since the state has had so many socialist politicians in its history, it did not strike me as overcategorization. Please feel free to edit the category description if you find I've missed things. Cheers--BaronLarf 21:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Since he was a member of the notable Shiner (band), he passes WP:MUSICBIO for speedy deletion purposes. So I removed the speedy tag you placed on the stub. You need to send it to WP:AfD to argue otherwise. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
DYK Nomination
Hi. I've nominated George Hampel (legislator), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. BaronLarf 13:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike, could you take another look at this CSD? I've been through a fair bit of Derek B's work and this is one I would call a not-copyvio. There's only so many ways of telling a life story and chronological order is not a creative selection for ordering of facts. I don't see any distinctive phrasing retained either. Yes, the text closely follows what is at allmusic.com but a comprehensive retelling will tend to do that when only one or two sources are available. I realize DRV is always an option but I thought I'd get your comments before considering that. The guy's taken quite a few kicks to the head recently so I'd prefer we make sure we're being clear on the message before he just gives up altogether. Franamax (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Franamax suggested I add my 2 cents concerning this article. Franamax, thanks for offering to e-mail the article to me. I do remember this article, I vacillated on this one a number of times. What caught my eye was the sequence and some (not all) of the text seemed to be only slightly reformulated. The combination of the two tipped me toward the CSD. FYI - because I was so close to not marking for CSD, I would not see a problem with supporting recreation. My best to you both. ttonyb (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Userfication? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no vested interest in this organisation, which is, apparently, trying to establish a trade that improves conditions for its workers and the reduce the impact of harmful pesticides and colour chemicals on the environment. How can I confirm the veracity of their claims? It would also help me investigate through the supply chain - and therefore tell online retailers whether or not they should be making fair trade and ecological claims, and better inform customers, who pay a premium to help workers in poorer countries. I believe that fair trade products are a much better way of helping improve living standards than grain dumping and supporting corrupt governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartconnolly77 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request by User talk:UAB Wiki
Hello Orangemike. I think this editor has been doing good work. Any conflict of interest doesn't seem too serious. (I went through his first few edits, where he was trying to improve some draft articles in his user space). I suggest that he be unblocked, either under his current name, or a new name. I think this unblock needs you to do it, or it needs for you to give permission. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- It sounds pretty reasonable to me. I suggest we unblock so that they can have a username change. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- User:NJA did it without awaiting my approval; but in this case I have no problem with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm hopelessly overwhelmed by the Cole Smithey article. The references are poorly formatted, but I'm having trouble deciphering which ones might establish notability. I think he might be notable, but I can't confirm the validity of the sources. Can you advise? The article is being edited by, it seems, Colesmithey (talk · contribs) himself. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
SPUSA
Whether or not the SPUSA is a multi-tendency party is irrelevant to the point that the SPUSA, officially, considers social democracy to *not* be socialism. Multi-tendency doesn't mean anything goes, it means there's a multiplicity of opinion. The quoted resolution has been repeatedly upheld. Chegitz (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- "That does not prevent a minority within the party from holding a contrary opinion; indeed, that's at the heart of being a multi-tendency organization." This is irrelevant to the edit. The Party officially rejects social democracy. There may be social democrats in the Party, but just because the New York Times describes the SPUSA as platform social democratic does not mean that is how the Party describes itself. The Party rejects social democracy.
- Furthermore, multi-tendency does not mean anything goes. A multi-tendency organization is not required by definition to have contrary opinions within it. It is only required to have more than one. In other words, the SPUSA could ban social democrats from being members, but because there are Trotskyists and Luxemburgists and libertarian socialists, it would still remain a multi-tendency organization, because there would be more than one tendency. This is in distinction to organizations which allow no deviation from the Party line. Chegitz (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Username Change
I greatly appreciate the advice and input offered here. I am new at this and I want to be sure I am not making any mistakes.
In response to Emporer's suggestion: I have submitted a request for a username change (from GradyLyda to EyeScan) "To avoid giving the impression that this account is for promotional purposes."
In response to Orangemike's suggestion: I have removed my name from the List of science fiction visual artists, and I will not be adding to any more lists. I appreciate being informed about these problems, and I have reviewed the relevant policies.
If there is any other way I can change the article to ensure a neutral point of view, I will be happy to comply. The intention of this article is to offer more complete coverage for the Star Reach page, and not for self-promotion. Please let me know if there are any other issues I should be aware of.
Thanks! GradyLyda (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Canada's World
Hello Orangemike. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Canada's World, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a newbie - Your guidance would be appreciated!
Hi, Mike. I'm the person who wrote the Alec Lorimore article (poorly, it seems). It was my first effort. I thought I'd start with him, as I'm interested in his use of big screen 70mm for documentary films and a search of Wikipedia showed no one had yet created an article about him in particular, although several other iMax producers, writers and directors are already on Wikipedia.
I'm sorry I screwed it up, and I'd appreciate it if you'd be so kind as spend the time to give me a bit of your experienced guidance. I had selected the Wikipedia article on Ray Stark, someone with whom Lorimore had worked, as a model for my first article, as it appeared much more simply (and apparently - by not being removed - satisfactorily) constructed than those of Steve Tisch and Jerry Bruckheimer.
What I'd really appreciate is your critique- no matter how scathing - so I can learn what I should have done to make it meet Wikipedia's high standards. I will be putting it up re-edited on my talk page in a day or two, and when it's adjusted as best I can, I'll contact you again and ask you to kindly take a look and let me know what's bad and why (and, hopefully< what's good and why) so I can improve it enough for it to be worthy of publication. If you can finally give it your approval after I make the suggested changes, deletions, adjustments, etc., then I'll feel like I've taken a giant step toward doing this competently for other topics.
Deejayscribe (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? It's right there at Alec Lorimore! What are you talking about? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Mike: I did some substantial editing and would appreciate your taking a look and giving me whatever criticism and suggestions you have the time to share. I'll then make the appropriate/suggested modifications, that hopefully will make the piece more acceptable. I realize it's a fair amount of trouble for you to take time to do it, but I promise to take all comments and do my best to change it to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Thanks again for your help and your patience. Deejayscribe (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Star Reach
Hi. Quick question: Who is the COI issue at Star Reach? Looking at the history, I can't offhand see what major contributor to the article has a connection to it. Thanks for any info. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would say that since his edits consisted of wikifying "fantasy" and factually adding his name to a long list of names doesn't make him a "major contributor." This link and two words added nothing inaccurate, imbalanced or pushing a point of view, and the well-cited article otherwise has no apparent conflict-of-interest issues, so a tag suggesting that the article "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view" doesn't really seem appropriate. What do you think? -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- You got it.
- I'll tell you, though, at the time, when Star Reach was first published, it was like stepping foot in the New World. It seemed like the start of comics becoming almost like a new medium. It's hard to forget the excitement of those days. But I date myself! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
PLAYGROUND (2009 FILM)
Hi Orangemike, you flagged my entry Playground (2009 film) as reading like an advertisement.
Thanks for giving me the feedback. I have edited the entry and hope it is more informative.
Please let me know what steps I need to take to remove the blurbs from my entry.
thank you very much Ekso8 (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Tongal
Hi Orangemike, you deleted my entry User:Fightonfortroy for advertising reasons. I was hoping for feedback on how to improve this article. I've read through all of the guidelines and have reformatted the article to be as objective as possible, but clearly I'm missing something. My only reason for working on the article is to contribute more about crowdsourcing companies. At first my article was deleted because it didn't have enough references and now it probably looks like there's too many. I'm just trying to find a balance and contribute. Any advice would be appreciative. Thanks!
Fightonfortroy (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Fightonfortroy 02/25/2010
Thanks for the feedback. Honest mistake about the using the user page as my sandbox page.
Fightonfortroy (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Fightonfortroy
Check me
If you have time, please check my attitude and intentions toward Qattusu regarding Daphne Caruana Galizia on Hell in a Bucket's talk page. I'm getting sick of this sort of feigned veracity that amounts to nothing more than slander. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 11:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Sinovel
Hey where can I find the archived copy of the Sinovel page that you super-speedily deleted, you deleter you. Just kidding, I'll develop the page more in my sandbox but it'd be great to grab what was there before. Thx Publicus 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- See User:Publicus/Sinovel. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted file
You deleted File:Wikipedia-vandal.png and just over an hour ago the editor reuploaded it. Is the problem with using the Wikipedia logo still a problem? I think it probably is, this editor can't license a derivation of the Wikipedia logo under CC themselves. Fences&Windows 20:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I had no choice. "Note that no derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation." --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've screwed up big time, and i'm wondering if you can move the Socialist Party of Illinois page back to its original name, the Chicago Socialist Party. At the present time, there is no state affiliate to the Socialist Party USA in the state, but only a local, which is named the Chicago Socialist Party. So can you do me a favour? --TIAYN (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Request for Content from Deleted Page
Hello Orangemike, quite some time ago you deleted List of Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations deleted for CSD in 2008. I would like to get a copy of its contents at deletion time, and any recoverable snapshot ca. April 2008. I'm not asking that it actually be restored to Wikipedia after all this time. You're welcome to just email a wiki-text dump to me/post it to my user-space. I asked about it here and was directed to make this request of you directly—and was assure that if I asked nicely, you might actually do it. Would you be kind enough to provide me this article's contents? —Wikijeff (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creedence Cover The Classics
The album article was mistitled. I found a source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
ouch
I realize you are a vastly more experienced admin than my humble self, but it kind of hurts to see two of my decisions at UAA overridden by you without comment within as many minutes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
DList Magazine
Hi Orangemike,
I shouldn't have any conflict of interest with writing a new page for DList Magazine as I am only a reader of the magazine. I have other things I'd rather work on, so I'll put this on the back burner till I'm able to find more credible references. Thanks!
Fightonfortroy (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Fightonfortroy
Second opinion
I'm considering nominating Anal cleansing for deletion. It's based one a single source (a guide from schoolsanitation.org), with the exception of a single point from a Islamic Q&A site. And it's a magnet for vandalism. Do you see any encyclopedic notability in a seperate article here? Just wanted a second opinion to see if I'm looking at this all wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "Self-Aggrandizement"
Orange Mike - I totally understand the idea of not using Wikipedia for "self-promotion." However, I am actually trying to make a correction - namely, there is an article in Wikipedia that is called "the Ropecast Podcast" that indicates that is ONLY an ESL podcast. As I've been producing a ropecast podcast for many years, that was inaccurate. In fact, if you look up "Graydancer" on wikipedia you will find it has been used by wikipedia as a reference source to verify OTHER entries.
As you say, someone else _has_ created a "Graydancer's Ropecast" page, so I hope that will suffice. However, since wikipedia itself has used my show as a verifying reference, I would appreciate it if there could be some accuracy here. Graydancer (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Federation between Progressives & Socialists in Wisconsin
I've replied to your comment at Talk:Wisconsin_Progressive_Party#Assemblymen with an attempt at documenting the Federation. Cheers --BaronLarf 05:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Alex Arcadia/Neutrality Issue/Resolution
Dear Orangemike,
Thank you for your opinions on some of my first work as a Wikipedian editor. (Congrats on your awards - your diligence & credentials are impressive!!)
I can assure you that my contributions to the Alex Arcadia article are free from undue bias or preconceived opinions. I approached the subject as objectively as I would any other subject. I strongly feel that the biographical material and images I have contributed do significantly add to the clarity and quality of the original article, while helping to expand it. I did fact check the original article, then expanded it with what I found to be notable facts from reliable sources. Admittedly, my personal interests and expertise do lie predominantly in the creative realm, mainly with visual/conceptual artists, but my aim as an editor is to maximize the quality of Wikipedia as a whole, by contributing to articles where I can be most effective. Granted, I am new as an editor to the Wikipedia community, but this doesn't automatically make my work less sound or credible. I do know that according to Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest" policy, that when dealing with suspected conflicted editors, the first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor. This did not happen. It was simply "cleaned up" and left for the wolves! I understand Wikipedia works as a community, but I also believe it's members should act fairly. I would like to see this issue resolved fairly and have my contributions restored, at which point others & myself can work to establish more secondary sources where you noted necessary. I would also appreciate your guidance in where and how else to bring this discussion for further resolution. Thank you. Respectfully, Perfomativity (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC) — Perfomativity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I'd like your honest input at the AFD, because I always feel like I'm missing something when someone has a lot of their own material published, but very little about them can be filtered out into view. Much appreciated! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked username returns
Hey Mike - you blocked Isomedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) earlier this year - they appear to be back as Isomediallc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), still spamming articles with links to their company website.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Deletion of article on Social Science Research on Greatness
hello Mike
I’m responding to your proposed deletion of my article entitled Social Science Research on Greatness.
It is at this url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Science_Research_on_Greatness
Your comment was:
Original research; has no place here, appears to be a college paper
Here I will
1) discuss What’s happened so far – ie your comments and my work which lead to this point, ie what I was trying to to in writing the article.
then
2) indicate how I’ve re-edited the article, in hopes that it will be acceptable for wiki
1) What’s happened so for
I’m brand new to Wiki so have no doubt made some errors in writing this.
I’ll spell out what I did and maybe you can give me a few tips re correcting it.
First, the article is not a college paper or anything like it. I simply know a great deal about the soc sci research on the topic of greatness .. eg I’ve read every book summarized in the article except Galton’s 1869 book which is discussed in Simonton (1994) book on Greatness.
I wrote the article after looking up the topic of ‘greatness’ on wiki. Which sent me to this url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatness
from there I followed an internal link to this Url re ‘great man theory’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory
as neither of them had a single word about the massive research literature on the topic of greatness, I decided to summarize the main works which have been done, and did so with a great deal of detail, all of which is referenced in the article .
The other thing I did in the article was provide what I termed ‘critique(s)’ of each of the books which were described in the article.
The reason I did this is because each of them has been critiqued and so that is part of the relevant information about them. I think I cited my sources.
As I am brand new to wiki I tried to find one of your existing articles which is fairly closely related to my topic, to use as a model for writing. I ended up using an article on Multiple Intelligences. This article has a section entitled, ‘opposing viewpoints’, which is very similar to the material I included under my ‘Critique(s)’ sections, Ie it presents criticisms of the theory of multiple intelligences from various authors.
It’s at this Url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligences#Opposing_views
2) how I’ve re-edited my article
As I’m assuming that the parts of my article which were problematic for you were the critique sections (as the rest of it is simply description of the books, all fully cited with page references), I’ve re-edited my article so as to remove all of the critique(s) sections. I think this makes the article sizably less informative, but have done so in hopes that this will make it acceptable as a wiki article.
If there are other edits which you think are needed, please let me know and I’ll try to take them onboard.
The topic of greatness is immensely interesting to many people, and since there is such a massive social science literature on it, it seemed to me that this information would be useful to wiki readers.
Again, any comments or suggestions muchly appreciated.
AgRince (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Article is now at Afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Science Research on Greatness. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Georgie Bingham
You accidentally created two noms, so I tagged the second for G6. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
LumenVox Article
Hi Mike,
I appreciate your having a look at my LumenVox article. I see that you removed a reference to the FreeSWITCH wiki as not being a reliable source, which I understand. On the other hand, the FreeSWITCH documentation is largely via that wiki. Is it OK to mention that in some other fashion? Or should I just remove the reference? I doubt I will be able to find another mention of this functionality that is reliable (e.g. it would likely be a mailing list post archived on the Web somewhere).
By the way, do you happen to have any general feedback on that article? In your opinion, does it seem to meet the various standards required for article creation? Thanks again, Stephen Keller (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I responded to your response at my talk page. I forget exactly the proper etiquette (responding here or there and the right template to use) so thought I would just put it both places. Stephen Keller (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you help this new editor?
Hi OrangeMike. A new user Doson left a message on my talk page to help him with unifying his accounts. He's having problems with one account especially (the zh wikipedia account). Would you be able to chip in and help him? Thanks in advance. Best regards ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 18:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Putting Social Science Research on Greatness inside Greatness
hello Mike
thanks for your suggestion re putting the 'usable' parts of my article inside the existing 'Greatness' article on wiki. I'm presently re-editing the article in my user space.. in hopes i can come up with those 'usable' parts (ie to the satisfaction of wiki editors).
if i can sort that, i'll defo try to figure out how to put my info re soc sci res on greatness inside the existing article.
AgRince (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Carol Shea-Porter entry
Hey, Mike,
I'm not Wikipedia experienced, but am trying to keep untruthful entries out of the Carol Shea-Porter page. Would a "protect" be in order in this case?
Thanks
BillNH10 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that on February 19th, you had emptied Category:Alternate history fandom and added a {{cfd}} tag to it, but didn't actually make the nomination. I have reverted these edits; if you still think the category should be deleted, please nominate it properly and don't empty it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is another article about a Wisconsin socialist-Wisconsin State Senator Frank Raguse that came through. Hope you are doing well-RFD (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
James Vineyard
I notice you started an article about James Vineyard. I started one about James Russell Vineyard the same man- he served in the Wisconsin Assembly then went off to California and took part in the Gold Rush and served in both houses of the California Legislature. The 2 articles should be merged-ssame man-Thanks-RFD (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Mike. Hope things are going well with you. :) A contributor stopped by to ask me about the deletion of this article, confused that it was deleted under an image rationale. It seems obvious that the tagger just used the wrong label; no doubt there was copyright infringement in the article of [8]. However, I wonder if you overlooked the history of this article. The infringement was introduced in November 2009 by User:In089107, but the article had been there since 2006. The article started getting spammy in July 2007, but seems neutral if undersourced prior. Sourcing problems seem pretty fixable. Would you consider restoring the clean versions of the article? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just been informed that there's an undeletion request outstanding for this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Restored last clean version. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) If you or somebody else hasn't already, I'll go make a note at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#BPAY. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- And you already did, so back to the drudgery with me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike! :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- And you already did, so back to the drudgery with me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) If you or somebody else hasn't already, I'll go make a note at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#BPAY. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Restored last clean version. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Carpal Therapist
You had deleted my entry for "Carpal Therapist" due to reasons associated with advertising. I can surely appreciate the need to monitor advertisers trying to 'sneak in' an ad. But my issue is what does one do with a legitimate new product that represents a huge leap in medicine as well as a paradigm shift in how medical therapy is administered? The scientific team which developed the Carpal Therapist did just that. It's akin to an entry for the "Segway" or "iPod" - products, yet products that change the way we do things and therefore are of sociological (and in this case, medical) importance. Thus, the Carpal Therapist is not a "Chia Pet" - a product for which there is an entry, or just a new candy or cookie (although "Oreo" also is a Wikipedia entry). There are verifiable scholarly medical publications about this device and its effectiveness. I personally have dozens of publications in premier medical journals so I believe I wrote the article with considerable skill. If fact, I endeavored to avoid making it sound like a product promotion or advertisement, but kept the facts clear. In short, I would be happy to edit the article again to include it as part of Wikipedia's body of encyclopedic knowledge. But I would respectfully request you guide me in doing that so I don't break whatever rules were broken. Thank you for your attention. kvparsons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.66.83 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpal Therapist. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest - Your Help Please
See my comments, titled "Massive Conflict of Interest..." at the respective Talk pages for the Open Carry and Concealed carry in the United States articles. Can you please investigate this, or contact another Admin that has the time to do so??? I appreciate your neutrality, since you don't have an axe to grind on this issue. By the by I'm sending this anonymously with a dotted quad address, because SaltyBoater has a history of vindictiveness, and he would be sure to cyberstalk me and drop AFDs and/or disruptive edits on the various pages where I have been contributing. 173.84.198.107 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- OrangeMike, if you have questions about the history of this please feel free to contact me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Forward Thinkers and make your cases there. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the overlapping edits on Human Frontier Science Program. I'll attempt to merge them. I think the article can be saved, but first she *needs* to read WP:OWN Naraht (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Accidental Reverting Article Jeffrey Wright
My apologies. In reading your contribs page, I saw the vandalism tag near the D. Jeffrey Wright entry. I clicked it thinking it would explain the tag. Instead, it reverted to another version. I believe I have restored your edits. My apologies. :) Lacbolg (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand the policies and the program here well enough to know that administrators do not tolerate first time editors coming in registering a user name and editing a single article all related to the same person and basically destroying a great deal of my work, the person has also removed references and made the article a personal obsession. The article and its content has relevant sourcing, the challenges and demands for citations necessary based on public records do not need to be noted and I do not see the need to use the same reference 3 or 4 times if it was already cited, if an editor fails to seek and review the sources, he should not edit out. If you choose to permit this it is fine, I strongly believe that my work and contribution which has existed a considerable time is being very harshly criticized and citations are being requested where none were necessary simply because of a brand new editor that came here with clear intention to diminish the credibility of the subject. On the issue of objectivity, I have no personal connection to the subject he was a neighbour several years ago, I found him interesting enough to note his work considering that he organized environmental events where Al Gore was the keynote speaker, and distributed 10 million trees is basis enough for inclusion. and I wrote the article as part of a school assignment. I guess I will just have to work harder and pay to read, include and have the other articles I am missing. Meanwhile I will remove all my work that is being challenged. But really reading the article it is clear that User:Lacbolg has targeted this article it is evident in the last sentence of the first paragraph where I wrote "He got started in the non-profit sector and green causes in the late 1980s through prominent people[who?] he came to meet working as a communications installer and electrical protection engineer installing lightning rods, auctioneer, and pastor in Wilmington and Greenville, Delaware." The article from the Wilmington clearly shows his involvement with the DuPonts and Sen. Joseph Biden as do other articles not cited. I will rewrite the article now and remove everything that can be challenged. Ingenosa (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Social Finance
Hi, I'm new to wikipedia so I haven't got great article creation skills. You deleted my page Social Finance Ltd. Is there any chance I can get it reinstated? We aren't trying to advertise or sell anything we are a non-profit organisation based in the UK. We work to get investment into social sector projects. Thanks User:W7aqhh3
- Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. This has nothing to do with how much I approve of what you are trying to do with the organization; just with what we do and don't do here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Mike, I respect your advice on all things promotional and peacocky. Am I out of line on this one (and see the user talk page "discussions" at User talk:Ukexpat and User talk:James Cihlar)? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 March 2010
I PRODed this article, but my brother thinks it should be CSDed. What do you think? Dethlock99 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that answers my question! Thanks Dethlock99 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Mike, I read the guidelines on self referencing and understand the intent to be to give reliable references. My blog has no advertising or monetary links it is for information. I found a university reference to replace the one to my own information page, I understand that the pruning of stone fruit trees must be very, very, controversial. I found a reference that verifies the information in the wiki. Please re-check. User: Paul Royle-Grimes 12 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
Hey, Mike, I'm not Wikipedia experienced, but am trying to write an article on the new class of float type aircraft. I have papers on it that cost money in a PDF format. It took way too much of my time to be deleted in a second. So, if you can help me out in any way, that would be great! Thanks Johnnywes05 03/12/2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC).
- Sorry, Johnny, but that was not an article, it was an advertisement, and was deleted as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Then please explain to me how a business, such as, Boeing isn’t an advertisement. Please explain how I can make it to your taste. You are not helping me here. Tigerfish Aviation has new technology that will be revolutionizing seaplanes?? Johnnywes05 03/12/2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC).
- Read WP:CORP and WP:SPAM for some guidance on our standards, along with WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:SHOWSPOTENTIAL for that "will be revolutionizing" rhetoric). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so should I just edit the seaplane section and float plane section for the new float type prototype that has already been proven 5 years ago because this too much of a pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywes05 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you've got some solid sources (not company press releases and the like), sure; your expertise is always welcome. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I have Tigerfish Aviation, the University professors in Australia, and other sources that can be contributed. I see what you’re saying about the PR. Not a good link to show its existence. There are other ways. Thanks, Johnnywes05 03/12/2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC).
- Tigerfish has an obvious conflict of interest, and should not be trusted as a source. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If it wasn't for Tigerfish there would be no source and no RAPT system. Maybe I'll just start a new article on the RAPT system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywes05 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- By definition, if the subject matter is so obscure that there is no information available from impartial, reliable third-party sources, then the subject is too obscure to get an article written about it here. I'm just saying that you must provide those verifiable sources of information in order to create and maintain an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is plenty of 3rd party confirmation including the most well known http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for everything. Johnnywes05
RAPT system
Hey, Mike tell me what you think???
Johnnywes05 —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
Do Not Remove This Page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Knight_Eberhard_(Bernhar)_Buob_(Booe)
Mike. All info on this page meets the copy right. All rearch was done by me and has all the necessary info to back it up. Why are you so hot to remove this page, this makes twice you have tried? --Rvbooe (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Ron
ICON SfCons
Hi again, OM,
Seeing nothing applicable on the talk pg of what is now List of ICON science fiction conventions, i proceeded without inspecting the history. But in the process i rebutted at length what turns out to be your desire for a Dab (rather than some form of article).
I am hopeful we will turn out to be in agreement on the {{SIA}} tag. But let me comment on the present title:
- IMO, the Rdr of ICON (science fiction convention) (which i left, without deliberation, where the move tool created it) to that content presents no serious problem. However, Icon (disambiguation)#Science fiction conventions is arguably a better target (assuming there is no primary topic among the 3 ICONs), since those looking in an encyclopedia for an ICON SfCon presumably want an article, not just the brief entry on the list, and are going to have to lk to the appropriate article at some point; better that they do so via the Dab-page section rather than via the list that will, for them, needlessly be more cluttered.
- The ICON (science fiction convention) would be perfect if there were only one such article-worthy SfCon, and is fine for a redirect to serve those who expect there to be only one. I was led to considering renaming the list bcz the Principle of least astonishment counsels unpiped links where feasible, and i was inclined toward an entry like "* ICON (science fiction convention), list of similar named ones" and that made me think "Why doesn't its title describe it accurately?"
- The answer is probably that it was trying to do the job a Dab is supposed to do: give choices to a user who thinks they know a title that uniquely IDs the article they want, but has in mind an ambiguous title; Dab's have to have titles that don't describe their content, so that users who aren't aware of the ambiguity will get to them!
- In contrast, list articles have no such need, and the worst thing one of them can do is have a title with a parenthesized suffix, and look like a fully dab'd title! I suppose "ICON .... conventions" is an improvement, but it still suggests the title is just a name for the series of cons held in one place or by one org, rather than a cat-herd of cons that are similar primarily in arriving individually at similar names. (I suppose one could argue that the word "named" should be included in the title, for similar reasons.)
- I am, however, less invested in the specific title than this recitation will have made me sound. I expect to be satisfied to have spoken my piece, and to stay out of any further title changes.
This commentary should clarify why i reverted more than just the unacceptable cat (knowing only that the Cat removal was a reversion); there are too many sparse talk pages accompanied by equally sparse edit histories for me to regret missing the evidence in the history until i turned to some record keeping, so i trust the clarification will avoid any ill-feeling.
Hope find you in the orange of health, living out orangey scenarios!
--Jerzy•t 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not slander me
Mike,
I just wanted to let you know that you have list a statement I consider to be slander on the page where you and other talked about deleting my page. The statement you posted was ( I very strongly suspect this is their putative ancestor, and the report is one provided by a professional genealogy service of some sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC) ). This is my work to which I have proof and many witnesses to back it up. I am now considering sending this to my attorney as I feel that this may impact my Reputation and my credibility and so may impact the book I will soon release. I feel that this will reduce the amount of profit I feel this book will make which I use to do more research and so I feel have been damaged by you.
In respect to you I will give you 24 hours to remove your statement before I think more on moving on with any legal action. Thank you for your understanding. --Rvbooe (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Ron
Regarding the Ropecast
Orange Mike, it is interesting that you would defend a podcast with 25 episodes that's been around for a year (and has nothing at all to do with rope) against a podcast with over 5 years and 200 episodes, numerous citations in other periodicals (such as the SFGate Website, the Onion A.V. Club, etc) which is all about rope. I am not "spamming", I am defending the name of the work that I do, which seems to be inaccurately portrayed by the other podcast. It is fascinating that you will put up entries about other podcasts - such as Polyamory Weekly, a podcast I helped create after I started the Ropecast - but for some reason you think I am trying to promote porn. I don't make any money from the podcast, I simply help educate the people who choose to participate in that activity which is legal and a matter of personal adult choice. See the entry here on Shibari, for example. I understand your wanting to protect this site from porn spammers, and I applaud it; however, you are letting your zeal get in the way of the facts. Graydancer (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what your problem is. RoPeCast is not the same as Graydancer's Ropecast; there is a clarifying link on top of each article, for the convenience of any stray reader seeking the other subject. We don't do a disambiguation page when there are only two notable meanings of a term. (Hey, if there were any bias here, it would be towards my fellow cheesehead, not towards an obscure website with dubious notability; but I'm trying to avoid accusations of bias towards U.S. topics.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: your NLT block
Hi Orangemike. I've criticised your action at the ANI thread, perhaps harshly, but please note that I appreciate your intentions and what impression you've been under with respect to NLT, and that a block was inevitable for what was said there. I hope my criticism can effectively convey the level of frustration that such blocks can cause for users receiving them, and how counterproductive that can be when they perceive impropriety/bias (whether or not it actually was in this case may be another matter in itself). In such circumstances, even reversing the block or letting someone else reimpose it won't undo the harm. Hope that makes sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
novice but serious editor needs some help/advice
I'm new to editing and I noticed you say in your user-page you have experience in deleting articles that have existed on Wikipedia for a while yet still fit the bill for deletion. I am very interested in what your opinion is on the notability of the Teleflora article, and thus whether its appropriate to be included in Wikipedia. I cleaned up the many NPOV problems with it and all that's remaining is 4 sentences. It's not that no one is re-writing anything, or I didn't have time. There's just nothing to write. It's a privately held company, Hoover's doesn't really publish anything more than Teleflora's gushing promotional description and list of 3 of its known officers (this is hoover's teleflora listing). I don't think because its included in Hoovers makes it automatically a notable company, but maybe it is a big indicator that it is notable? Then it seems to me, we'd have an article about a company that is rotting away waiting for the company to get notable enough to have more reliable coverage to expand the information (such as products, services, etc).Retran (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That's my one question specifically (does inclusion in hoovers mean its likely to be notable?), and your opinion on any of my other reasoning too (if it is off-key I'd like to know). I havn't nominated it for deletion yet, just placed a notability tag in the article and a section in the article's talk. Retran (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
List of alumni of Wesley College, Melbourne
Hi Orangemike. I'd appreciate your guidance in cleaning up this article, particularly regarding Wikipedia convention as I'm not quite clear. I've tried to stress notability to editors adding names to this list. One of my issues is that there have been (for example) athletes listed for whom there are no links, but who would probably qualify under WP:ATHLETE had an article been written (e.g. they have represented Australia at their sport). So in that sense they are notable, but no link exists. Is a fall-back to provide sources that demonstrate their notability (for the purpose of this article, putting to one side whether there is a Wikipedia article on them or not)? On sources in general, do you view it as mandatory that sources verify that the person in question was a former student of the school, or just to confirm the claims made regarding their notability? Cheers Murtoa (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- The rule of thumb is, WTAF: write the article first! If they are in fact notable (not everybody who "represents their country" meets WP:ATHLETE, for example), then work up a quick stub article showing their notability, before adding them to the list. As to the sourcing: such lists are inconsistently handled; but I've always held that if they attended the school claimed, it should already be in their article, with a source showing that they went there. (Again:WTAF!) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This article scares me. I think it needs hacking or killing. But it's Friday afternoon and my brain can't take it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Dig (magazine)
Hello Orangemike, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Dig (magazine) has been removed. It was removed by Barkeep49 with the following edit summary '(Removing PROD: I had trouble finding notability guidelines for magazines, but it seems at least as notable as some magazines which were kept at AfD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Barkeep49 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
LumenVox
Message added 20:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, perhaps you would care to give your opinions here? ––
Jezhotwells (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Peer review
I invite you to come participate in a peer review of Portal:Speculative fiction. You can see (and participate in) the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Great Ayton
You should stop beating around the bush, being all mealy-mouthed and come out and actually say what you think. Thanks for the support. --Simple Bob (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you watch Orange Mike you might enjoy http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=GASBAGSMike#p/f/7/p21nZmtq56M MikeeNewton (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Orange Mike I am lost about your last comment on the Great Ayton discussion "travelogues and tourist pamphlets" - what are you talking about? The Great Ayton Shops, Pubs & Restaurants is just an information site about Great Ayton - have you even looked at it? If you believe that websites that promote a town/village should be banned then you should also look at Stokesley - they have added a link to the "Visit Stokesley" website which is all about promoting Stokesley but they have given it a link title of "New Stokesley and Area Information website". You will notice on the discussion that support for the website came from Dan O'Sullivan who lives in Great Ayton and authored a book http://us.macmillan.com/insearchofcaptaincook and is very well respected in Great Ayton. He is the Chairman of the group researching the history of Great Ayton.MikeeNewton (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Help
Dear Orange Mike, I spent most of the day helping my friend create a Wiki page (1st ever attempt)... it didn't go down very well with wiki-headz so we spent the rest of the day trying to improve it. We thought we'd made progress and discussed what considerable further improvements we would make tomorrow. Just got home to find that you have deleted it. No warning, no guidance or advice, nothing. I also see i've been blocked from doing anything without being logged in. When you try something for the 1st time, are you naturally brilliant at it instantly? I'm not, I have to practice and work at it. For all you know our article could have blossomed into an excellent article and myself and my friend could have gone on to write other excellent articles, instead we're completely deflated and annoyed that we put the effort in in the first place. The Page was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderland_(Events), it's a subject that has been written about in The Times, The Guardian, NME and many more publications. Furthermore, there are countless other subjects / events of the same nature that have articles about them. Please let us have our article back, we have learnt so much in a day, we hope to learn more. Jamwarm (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- "wondrous club environment filled with exquisite sights, sounds and energy"? That's not an article, that's a shameless advertisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Return of an image you deleted in Feb.
You deleted this image File:Wikivandal.png in Feb. as a copyvio. The same user brought it back. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Not censored
Not censored is not a freedom to post anything about anyone as long as you have a citation, that is a local story of little notability about a person of little notability, locking the article and reinserting it imo is a bit excessive. The only citations are about this one event. You would have been better nominating it for deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The pattern of borderline legal threats in particular led me to follow the "don't ignore legal threats" principle. I have queried the notability of the subject; I certainly wouldn't mind if you did an AfD nomination as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, I will keep out of it now, sometimes I wonder if editors would be so liberal with the wikipedia is not censored if they had to defend any issues themselves without the assumed safety net of the wikipedia lawyers. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Legal threat block
I notice you recently blocked User:86.157.225.157 for NLT; we got an email from the user via OTRS retracting the threat so I've taken the liberty of unblocking him. Hope you don't mind. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly I don't mind; withdrawal of the threat is all we needed (as long as the IP behaves, of course). --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
ANI heads up
Hi, Mike. :) Something of interest to you, I believe, on ANI, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Daily Mail article
Hey... thanks for giving me a good laugh this morning. I didn't realize little, old me could cause such an uproar. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Your latest edit with the summary - more advice
You slay me! Ha, ha - I am LFMAO. --Morenooso (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Jonathan Miller (West Virginia politician). Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The article Jonathan Miller (West Virginia politician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 must have references.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided reliable sources, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide sources within 10 days, you may request the article be undeleted when you have sources. NW (Talk) 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Rundle Mall
Reverted edits by Rundle Mall (talk) to last version by 58.179.253.85. Why? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- The user account User talk:Rundle Mall was an obvious role account, and with that kind of COI should not have edited the article in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- The question should be why is it inappropriate to have a link to the store in the external links section of the article about that store, regardless of who put it there. Nowhere in COI does it say that editors with perceived conflict of interest may not edit 'the article in any way'.
- Someone has already reverted you or I would have done it myself. Please reread the COI policy page before you remove any more uncontroversial edits using COI as a rationale. Weakopedia (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Your thoughts please...
Mike, what do you make of Xiaopeng Rick Niu? Doesn't seem notable to me. Most of the refs are to home pages and the specific ones are merely reporting stuff Niu has said rather than being about him. I did PROD it but the creator removed it. Tempted to take to Afd. Thanks – ukexpat (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaopeng Rick Niu. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello: I saw the first official reply to the page. I have answered, for now, the best I can do to your concerns. I will try to include more information with time. If there is specific things that will help, I will very willing to listen. Please however do understand the page is only two days old. (There was an equivalent Japanese page which had quite bit of more info than whatever I inserted)
Scchan (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your edits on David Weir (writer)
Hi Mike, Thanks for taking the time to edit my page. I'm new to this, so appreciate the feedback! I've got a few queries about things I don't yet understand: (1) I notice you've removed some links and said these were 'to copyright violations'. What does this mean, please? I thought links to external sites were OK - rather than using sources unacknowledged within the page - so I'm not sure how to put these right. (2) You've tagged the page as possibly edited by someone with a conflict of interest, I guess because you spotted the shared surname. I am indeed David Weir's daughter, and I've tried to be transparent about that by using my own name rather than a pseudonym. Should I make this relationship even clearer, and if so, how? I checked Wiki guidelines and it tells me "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias" . I've tried hard not to be biased (I've not said my dad's the greatest, for instance!) but are there particular phrases you think do show bias that I should change? (3) The page is also tagged for general cleanup. What does this mean, and what should I do? I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thank you again for your help! Fiona Weir (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Mike, thanks for your responses to these Qs. I now understand what the copyright issue was, and I'll do my best to sort out the reference/source issues. Cheers! Fiona Weir (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you haven't initiated an AfD on Infotech Enterprises after I declined your speedy tag. The article had three maintenance tags, and I added two more. An IP removed them all without explanation.
If you ask me, the whole thing smells like a fish, and I haven't been able to locate any reliable sources. Any ideas? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hi, I'm trying to figure out why the article I created was deleted: "Brian Barrett (musician)". This was a moderately-known artist in the 90's and I'm trying to put together an article for him because one doesn't already exist, and one should. I am having a little trouble finding more sources, but there was at least a discography and a reference for it. I'm thinking that this should be enough to get it started, and I will add more information as I find it. I'd appreciate it if you put the article back up, and I will add to it as I find more information out.
Thanks, Zed4912 (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Zoosk Deletion
Zoosk is the first and fastest growing social dating site, if the wiki is going to represent match.com, OKCupid, Plenty of Fish, LavaLife and several others than it is only objective to represent the entire market. I am trying to provide strong reference links including The Wall Street Journal, Paid Content, TechCrunch, etc, but you say they are not credible enough. Rather than just deleting with out guidance, please provide assistance so we can rectify the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKBrooks (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- onlinepersonalswatch.com, internetdatingconference.com, examiner.com and Wall Street Journal Paid Content: none of these is a reliable source for assertions of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Temporal Aesthetics
Shouldn't you close the open AfD when you do a speedy delete? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporal Aesthetics appears to be still open. --Bejnar (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Feedback
Hi. You deleted an article I went live with prematurely. I sort of anticipated having it taken down which is why I requested feedback. I have a background in op-ed writing for college so I was trying to do the exact opposite of opinion since Wikipedia is based on fact. Unfortunately, my article came out more feature-like than I had anticipated. It's hard to make the switch when you write mostly opinion. So I was using this Wikipedia page to challenge myself more than anything. Would perhaps adding a section on controversy enhance the value of the article? How can I move it back to my userspace so I can fix it. And can you request feedback before going live, because I think that's what I should have done. Thank you for your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytwocents02 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I was considering attempting to write an article about this organization, and apparently somebody has already tried (and failed). Would you mind copying or moving it to somewhere in my userspace so that I could work on it and ideally create something that's not spammy? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Orangemike, on Sacred Band of Stepsons
Will address your concerns on the article by rewriting, adding citations, and expanding the article; want to make sure your concerns are understood and addressed. There is very little available about the Sacred Band of Thebes and have cited the single major outside-source article. Why the forty-six skeletons that are missing from the mass grave at Chaeronea is an unanswerable question. The Sacred Band of Stepsons were the introduction to many to the Sacred Band concept in the early eighties. There is a gay literature source that says as much. Will provide link to it. Will rewrite. Glad for any additional guidance. Harmonia1 (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Sacred Band of Stepsons
Have just read WP: Cite. This is my first Wikipedia article, so please be patient with me. The citation for DeVoto's article looks fine to me but I'll check it again: it is the only comprehensive article outside ancient sources for the SB,and I have put it several places where it was needed, in the SBT article and elsewhere, so perhaps if it needs fixed I'll have to fix it in other articles. The in-line citations (footnotes), make things hard to read when there are many; I would prefer to use them at "See also" or in a later section which has more about the factual portion and the fiction portion of this. Would it be okay to move the footnoted citations in the lead section to see also for now? Or do I not understand you? Has the edit answered your concerns in any way so far? I can work on this tonight if you have time for more guidance. Harmonia1 (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Sacred Band of Stepsons
Mike, thanks for using my talk page. I will wait to see your examples. Do you want more about the stories themselves, the characters, or more about the nonfiction military/historical background? No one has talked on the SBT page about the goddess Harmonia (Harmony), their tutelary or what Plutarch says about how and why she was chosen; or the SBT's training; this is covered in the novel so I could do a section on it if you want. Was trying to keep this very simple. Charles Hilbert is available to help with citations if help is needed; he's the only person besides DeVoto who is truly deep in the SBT area -- his SBT dissertation is 220 pgs. But since this mix of ancient military correctness and mythic fantasy is so unusual, was hoping not to overweight it one side or the other. Should it be shorter or longer? Do authors' other accomplishments count as notability or only other fiction?
Am very grateful for the guidance but won't do anything until I see what you send. Harmonia1 (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Mike, thanks for using my talk page
Talk:David Weir (writer)
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines specify how editors may comment on talkpages. WP:REDACT specifies how users may edit their own comments to talkpages. Note that it gives only two requirements.
- Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
- Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
At User talk:Fiona Weir you issued a warning for removal of a comment from the talkpage above. This was incorrect as the editor may remove comments if they wish and there had been no posted reply to consider.
Per WP:TALKNO I have removed your warning and similarly I have enacted the users wish to legitimately remove their talkpage comment. Your subsequent reply at the article talkpage (which I might note was less than comprehensive) remains. Considering the editors honest questions I would reccomend that you read Wikipedia:BITE before commenting again to them. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieve my article?
I realize that my article wasn't fit for publishing. I didn't take the time to go through all the guidelines. I apologize for wasting your time with such an article but am hoping to submit a legitimate informative article about robotic pool cleaners eventually. Is there a way that I can retrieve this copy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3nd3 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that copy was deleted in part because it contained a big swath of copyrighted material from somebody else; so I can't restore that material, as this would be restoring the copyright violation as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Martyrs
Where do you get off refering to Police Officers who die in the line of duty as "Martyrs"? Perhaps the next time you find yourself in a situation where you need a Police Officer you should call on an employee of a used bookstore or maybe a wannabee author-or better yet, someone who looks like a drug addicted throwback to the sixties. Now lets hear you cry about how youve been "attacked". Try changing your orange shirt into an orange dress. I dont give a damn if you ban me. Meanfrank (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- My my my... not only incivil (and apparently homophobic) but clueless. I'm proud to call many law enforcement officers my friends and some my union brothers. Andy Krakow was my union brother and fellow bargaining team member, and I don't mind admitting I've cried at the memorial to him and other fallen LEOs. But that's not what Wikipedia is for! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting to be very unproductive. The police officers in question are not notable and are not suitable for inclusion. Period. Arguing will not change that fact. Now cease your incivility; you've been warned about this countless times already. Goodvac (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You deleted this article for "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)"? I strongly disagree. The article was discussing a very specific feature of a common database product, including architectural and implementation information that technical readers would find useful. Having spent a lot of time on that article trying to flesh out the technical details, and I think you're dead wrong. BTW, I noticed you failed to delete the Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle Database articles for "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". SqlPac (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- This was a lengthy advertisement for a feature of a Microsoft product, with no references except to Microsoft's own publications. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was not an advertisement, it was an article about an implementation of a technical feature. As it was a Microsoft-specific implementation, Microsoft's technical documentation provided the best first round of reference resources. References to other sources were in the process of being added as I could get to them when you decided to delete it! By your proposed standard there are several other articles that need to be summarily deleted like Oracle Enterprise Manager, Oracle Developer Suite, JDeveloper, etc. These are "Unambiguous advertising" as you have interpreted the criteria above. If I'd known you were going to summarily delete it, I would never have invested any time in changing it from a Stub article to contain actual technical reference content!SqlPac (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mike, can you restore this to SqlPac's user space, please? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was not an advertisement, it was an article about an implementation of a technical feature. As it was a Microsoft-specific implementation, Microsoft's technical documentation provided the best first round of reference resources. References to other sources were in the process of being added as I could get to them when you decided to delete it! By your proposed standard there are several other articles that need to be summarily deleted like Oracle Enterprise Manager, Oracle Developer Suite, JDeveloper, etc. These are "Unambiguous advertising" as you have interpreted the criteria above. If I'd known you were going to summarily delete it, I would never have invested any time in changing it from a Stub article to contain actual technical reference content!SqlPac (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Brian Moore
A citation? What do you want, our SEC minutes? I put it in the discussion section because I don't have any documentation to prove it, but we certainly did it. Chegitz (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Verifiability is not an option. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that. That's why I didn't mention it in the article. But Discussion has to be verifiable as well? Would a letter on Party letterhead uploaded to Wikidocs suffice? Chegitz (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since the edit removing his party affiliation from his infobox, yeah, verifiability is an issue. But material uploaded to Wikidocs does not constitute a reliable source. Has nothing been published in the press? Nothing in Ballot Access News? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that. That's why I didn't mention it in the article. But Discussion has to be verifiable as well? Would a letter on Party letterhead uploaded to Wikidocs suffice? Chegitz (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi OrangeMike. You left a note on User talk:Meanfrank warning the user not to personally attack another editor. While I'm totally in agreement on your note, I'm wondering on what grounds have you warned User Meanfrank that they could be blocked? Please don't mind this query. I'm a regular contributor to HelpDesk and personally thought your block warning was not necessary. But again, this is only my personal opinion related to just this incident and in no way represents my respect for your contributions. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 09:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's part of the template, Wif! See Wikipedia:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi OrangeMike. I'd read that long back. Well, the first and only comment MeanFrank made on user Fuhghettaboutit's talk page (after which you warned you would block him) was not - in my opinion - a blockable comment. There was one line in his comment that was pushing the line (which was, "It's a damned shame if you don't feel the same way"). Is this worth a warning to an editor that he/she may be blocked? Not in my opinion. I truly believe that giving warnings for such comments would exacerbate the situation - which it did! MeanFrank's subsequent comments on his talk page [9][10] against you - whether they were as a result of your warning note (which I believe they were) or not - are clearly a personal attack and qualify for a block quite easily. I'm leaving this note for you to kindly in the future reconsider warning editors of a block when their statements might perhaps not be worth a block-warning. But I have to repeat again (because I really want to), this communication I am having with you in no way reflects the amount I respect your contributions. I really hope you take this as an outside opinion. Thanks and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- You need to take a closer look at this guy's editing history (even before the nonsense he posted lower on this very page). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with you on this... Thanks Orangemike and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- You need to take a closer look at this guy's editing history (even before the nonsense he posted lower on this very page). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi OrangeMike. I'd read that long back. Well, the first and only comment MeanFrank made on user Fuhghettaboutit's talk page (after which you warned you would block him) was not - in my opinion - a blockable comment. There was one line in his comment that was pushing the line (which was, "It's a damned shame if you don't feel the same way"). Is this worth a warning to an editor that he/she may be blocked? Not in my opinion. I truly believe that giving warnings for such comments would exacerbate the situation - which it did! MeanFrank's subsequent comments on his talk page [9][10] against you - whether they were as a result of your warning note (which I believe they were) or not - are clearly a personal attack and qualify for a block quite easily. I'm leaving this note for you to kindly in the future reconsider warning editors of a block when their statements might perhaps not be worth a block-warning. But I have to repeat again (because I really want to), this communication I am having with you in no way reflects the amount I respect your contributions. I really hope you take this as an outside opinion. Thanks and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Feedback requested
Hello Mike, I am writing regarding an article I wrote back in February - I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to get back to you. Here is the message I am referring to:
Hello,
May I please get some feedback on the following page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weatherlands/European_Climate_Assessment_and_Dataset_%28ECA%26D%29
I would like to make it live as soon as possible since our website, eca.knmi.nl, has been updated as well.
Note: All images are intended to be copyrighted as open to the public. They are generated by "using" the website which anyone can do.
Thanks for your time, please respond in "my talk."
Good day, ~WL
Weatherlands (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- This post says "our website"; what is your connection with this organization? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to answer your question. I say "our website" because I sometimes work on this ongoing project and they gave me the task of sharing information about the database. It is a database of freely available data that is downloadable on the website so no costs are involved and we are not "advertising". The project was initiated by the European Climate Support Network (ECSN) but is coordinated by KNMI where I currently work. Do you still consider this a conflict of interest? Is there a way you can you please assist me in getting the page made live?
Also, can you please explain to me why all of my external links have been broken?
Thanks for your help, Mike. From your "Orange Mike" nick, I thought you were Dutch :P
Have a lovely day, ~Weatherlands Weatherlands (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously, as an employee of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), you have a conflict of interest. You need to deal with this by being as up-front as possible about it. Promotion is no less promotion for being promotion of a non-profit or government program; see WP:NOBLECAUSE. Other observations: external links in the body of an article are strongly discouraged. Your draft article currently has wikilinks to a number of articles titles for article that don't exist, and thus show as redlinks. Additionally, you have a number of "See below" links, which are disparaged. I'll try to help do a bit of cleanup there. As to the orange: I just like the color (although my garb did get some approving feedback when I was in Den Haag for ConFiction); but I'm a republican, and have no more use for the House of Orange than for any other family of useless parasites a/k/a "royals".--Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your timely response, Mike! I would very much like to get this page made live and I have no qualms about being upfront about the conflict of interest. Is there anything I can do to work toward that end? Are there any questions I might be able to answer for you? Thank you for offering to clean up my page as well, I'll have a look at it - it is my first draft so I'm a little inexperienced with which links are allowed and which aren't etc.
- Thank you, too, for your patience. I'm looking forward to dealing with these issues and (hopefully) getting our page made live soon.
- P.S. My old roommate loves the color orange too, so you're not alone :P I saw 'orange' and instantly thought of Holland - I guess I've been living here too long, hehe.
- Weatherlands (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Feller Fart Smeller: And Other Spoonerisms
So you really think that I would advertise? Creating a new account didn't work obviously as I can tell by the constant rudeness that I get from members. Comments like that is why I'm barely on Wikipedia now. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- My old username was schuym1. I thought that everyone knew that by now. Still, I don't like people automatically assuming that something is an advertisement. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Special Beanie Babies
Re: merge, see my comment at the deletion discussion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the message...
...and the confidence you have in me! I am about to go on vacation for a couple of weeks, but maybe when I get back...thanks again! – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Further to your edit to University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Education, would you have a read of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_tactic_by_Revws and see if any action need to be taken.
Thanks
Codf1977 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Question
I realize that just because one organization that is similar to ours has a wiki page we are not automatically entitled to one, but at the same time the point of my article is to show that the Air Force has the same capabilities as other organizations(AKO, DKO, JKO, MarineNet). I am not trying to promote it or advertise merely show the Air Force education/training capabilities. I have used the ACP web site before and find that it would be beneficial for others to understand how training is evolving. I understand the mission of the program and have received briefings on it I now have a COI. This being said can I get assistance from someone who hasn't become involved with the program to help me get it published? Do you have a reference for doing this? Thanks Afeducationuser(talk)Afeducationuser (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Flying Pig Productions
Hi OrangeMike thanks very much for your information regarding the Conflict of Interest. I note that I should note my involvement at the top of the article which of course I am willing to do as the guidelines say that you are'strongly encouraged to declare their interests'. My concern may be over links that have been placed in the page as this seemed to be the norm for other comedy programmes broadcast in Scotland, who have links to Facebook and offical sites etc do think these should be removed? Could you advise? The guidelines say that 'editing articles you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited' at this moment in time I am adding the content and hoping for more people to take up the role hopefully. I have been very careful to only include facts and information about previous events and have hopefully not included anything which is promotional. Hopefully that is right. Any other help is gratefully recieved. Steverance (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Mike, my head hurt reading this one - what do you make of it? A previous article on the same subject was deleted pursuant to this Afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Design System. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
excuse me, you are unfair and wrong.
There is no advertising here. I contributed this article in good faith after 7 years personal testing of Human Design, but I have no awareness of other uses of these two words that you say are advertising.
I resent this foul play.
Who do I contact, and you need to use the rules correctly, not wrongly like this.
Thank you if you actually read something more closely and reconsider what this is. I provided many serious references.
Mikemahalo (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did read it. Did you read the prior discussion on this same topic? --Orange Mike | [[User talk::Orangemike|Talk]] 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Orangemike, I read in great detail, and I also read the AVAILABLE guides for newcomers. I see that you are an advanced and experienced admin, and you have other rules, that you apply arbitrarily - i posted some details to ukexpat and do not need to repeat them here. The prior discussion was for a different author and a different article, I not only read all that I could find, I located who wrote it and the back story, that article was in fact commissioned by someone with commercial interest, and I could see it had to be restarted from scratch. Then I realised that there was no content that I personally could be sure was suitable for wiki standards, but what remains is the one thing NOTABILITY, is it notable, is there evidence, and what is that evidence. It may have been clumsy and a newbie attempt, but these in themselves are NOT reasons for deletion. There also appear to be some rock bands or I do not know or care what, that is NOT my problem to delve into all of that, but you are unfair to mix me up with others.
My article had a very simple structure, and at this time there ARE people out there, independently interested in Human Design , who are not satisfied with the suppression of secondary references, and I say that if allowed into the wiki public domain, you will see a sensible and correct article emerge. This topic is out there, why have Harper Collins decided, this is the new thing for the bookstores? YOU are suppressing information, you are not following the guidelines as EXPLAINED and documented but in some harsher dream world where you and others are king and new ideas are to be stopped from entering. That is surely NOT the original vision or stated policy of wikipedia. It may be that the people who are able and willing to collaborate to make a sensible article are not YOUR people, not YOUR tribe of friends. I say the secondary references are there, but I alone cannot find them and also master every detail of all that YOU have mastered and think you can just throw your weight about.
IN spite of everything, I appreciate this journey, and this opportunity. But I do not trust you to play fair. I really do not. And behind you there is surely a club, all thinking alike, and it is perhaps why I left academia so far behind, long ago.
I sense a farewell here. I am glad to have attempted this. I will leave the rest to others, if I still feel the same way tomorrow. I wish you well, wikipedia is precious, but you are too trigger happy and in this case, I say, you were wrong.Mikemahalo (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Offering to userfy on Mihalo's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
ok, userfy please, and let's move on here. Thank you. For some reason my laptop blew up, I am here on a temporary password in my own user space but it signs a number instead. --175.100.58.151 (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to pick up the pieces of the article Mike Mahalo was working on. Is there some public place it can be put, or can it be restored to mikemahalo:human design for now? Harper Collins have indeed published a book in the UK last year, to be launched in the US this year: http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Pages/SearchResultsTitles.aspx?page=2&sdt=1&tts=human%20design & available now from amazon.co.uk The article at Pacha Magazine July 2009 page 88-92 is online here http://www.pacha.com/pachamagazine/ but difficult to navigate. You have to choose a page nearby and step through. The articles in Kindred Spirit Magazine autumn 2002 (front cover and main article) and London Evening News July 31 2009 would be available in public libraries in the UK. There will be other secondary references, those in Australia, the US, and the UK will be in English. Although the presentation may have been unclear, sufficient secondary references do seem to exist. --Digital witchdoctor (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mikemahalo/Human_Design is blank - can the article be put back there now, or is it to be undeleted and restored to mainspace. Because "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." wikiguidelines --111.118.151.56 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- The content has been moved to User:Mikemahalo/Human Design. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
ok thank you --175.100.33.34 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) at what point will NORMAL criteria apply to Human Design as a new topic? And what consensus is there for suppressing the topic name Human Design from wikipedia today? Just wondered how to navigate back to a flat playing field here... Also do not quite understand link rot, but suspect that needs to be addressed too? --175.100.33.34 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- "link rot" is slang for old URLs in links that no longer work. As to the blocked topic name: once the draft in userspace is brought up to minimum standards of impartiality, notability and verifiability, ask an admin to unblock the name in order that this article can be userfied. If the article is sound, that shouldn't be a problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This is wrong practice, I see there are challenges, but the onus here is for work stuck in the username for ONE individual, and whoever else can be bothered to trace the article hidden and with no public signpost, to break through not only with writing the article, but with specific high standards of wikipedia that simply do not apply to other topics. Human Design is only accidentally linked to Mike Mahalo, it is wrong to leave it connected any more. What if 7 other people all create user:xxx/Human Design, does the system say, oh, by the way, you may be interested to look over there...?
Where is the guideline in wikipedia that says for NEW ideas, someone already experienced in wikipedia must believe in the idea?
Where is the guideline in wikipedia that says, complex new ideas need a single super genius, with some connected friends perhaps, to work work work as if they had no other life?
Where is the guideline in wikipedia that says, we are powerful admins and unless you get your shit together as powerfully as us, your topics are not welcome here, but sure, we do put our own pet interests here, we network together here, so form your own private network first, matey.
There is no such individual, able to put this complex topic together, in my opinion. The originator, Ra Uru Hu, does not understand the system, he is famous for that, the mathematics involved seems to surprise him every time.
There is a further problem, maybe nobody who grasps Human Design has the faintest idea of wikipedia, everyone who comes to join this is a wikinewbie, prone to worse mistakes than already the case. Sure, Human Design attracts zombie minded idiots, and some of them will come to wikipedia and blurt crap on the article, but you have that already on other topics, I am sure, it resolves over time I would imagine.--Digital witchdoctor (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can continue to work on the current draft in Mahalo's userspace; or if you prefer, you can start your own draft in your userspace; and/or you can request that somebody else create an article, by posting a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles, referencing this discussion, the prior deletion, etc. We are not creating blocks here for some kind of perverse motives; we are simply trying to protect the project in an area where prior editors have shown themselves willing and eager to spam. Wikipedia is a complex project, and newbies do find it challenging; it would be absurd to pretend otherwise. We don't require that an editor "believe in" subject matter; in fact, that can lead to problems with the requisite neutral point of view; in fact, "Human Design" in Wikipdedia has been hindered by the fact that almost nobody but true believers has been trying to write about it, and the attempted articles have suffered thereby. We do, however, require that new ideas be notable enough that there has been substantial coverage of them in impartial, reliable third-party sources, from which information can be gathered. Blogs, Facebook pages and tweets don't count; nor do publications by advocates of the idea itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. I see a constant stream of additions and improvements in the history of the article from you and some other experienced editors, and that is really supportive. However I still say, you have a basic prejudice against this article, possibly this kind of article and what you think it is and is not. Until you see for yourself, you are making this more difficult just because you can, in my opinion.
I have to tell you, I changed identity from Mahalo to DWD- you crushed me so much, I could not come back here as Mike Mahalo. I have not used the name Digital Witchdoctor for some years, it was from a time when I was more academic and intellectual, leading to personal problems in my life, Human Design guided me to be more "real", but I sense now a need to reconnect back to include all aspects of myself. Forgive me if that seems odd. The name Mahalo is my spiritual and artistic name, associated with my freedom to be without intellect, and so unsuitable here. I wrote more on this at user:digital witchdoctor, I felt I owe you some explanation, ok.
I am really surprised to see you added the PROMOTION quote of Chetan Parkyn's book from Harper Collins. He is no way the "most successful" at anything excecpt publishing a new book, he is a nice guy, but to quote that, why? I really find that begs ridicule. Do you genuinely feel that adds anything to the article on Human Design, this absurd claim. Clearly Ra Uru Hu is more successful, millions of revenue, the whole business and knowledge system personally owned, 10,000 personal readings, interviews in Pacha celebrity life style magazine, and some very well known and connected people... Chetan cannot even be in the top ten on the planet, by any reference other than a published book, that makes him the most successful author, he will sell, for sure, and that may lead to future success, but I hear so many criticisms of his style recently. --Digital witchdoctor (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee School of Education
Which part of this article you think is advertising? I already made modifications before removing the tab. Revws (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Language like "a number of centers and programs that enhance both the students’ educational experience and the school’s commitment to the community" is more appropriate to a recruiting brochure than an encyclopedia article. Indeed, much of what you've been doing in UWM articles seems more promotional than impartial. (And I say that as a proud UWM graduate and continuing part-time student, and husband of a UWM employee.) It often reads like it's been lifted from University Relations' press releases. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you made a mistake. I removed instead of added this sentence from the article. Revws (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As Guilląme Furrét, you deleted this twice as a hoax and salted it, back in September 08; but in April 09 it came back with the middle name added, and has lurked until now when Joao Xavier (talk · contribs) tagged it as a hoax. I have done some searches, found nothing, and taken it to AfD. Did you have any particular knowledge that it was a hoax, or was it just suspicion plus lack of confirmation? JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate article help
Canadian Student Loans is basically the same article as Student loans in Canada. It looks like the blocked creator copied chunks of the second article to keep the article from being deleted. I didn't know how to nominate/tag it for deletion since there were several nom and decline edits among admins. Would you take a look at the articles? Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Russ Feingold
I added "Category:American Libertarians" to Russ Feingold's article because Wikipedia lists him, with references, as a "Libertarian Democrat." sbrianhicks | Talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC).