Jump to content

User talk:Orangemike: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
vox pop
Line 205: Line 205:


I was wondering if you could take a look at this article and see if it is notable/good/objective enough to be posted. I used other Marching Band pages as a basis, and judging by them, it appears notable enough (I am aware of the "Other Stuff Exists" rule). There is also a possible COI here. Could you please look at it and edit it if necessary? If there's a better process for doing this, please let me know.[[User:Kevinbrogers|Kevinbrogers]] ([[User talk:Kevinbrogers|talk]]) 07:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could take a look at this article and see if it is notable/good/objective enough to be posted. I used other Marching Band pages as a basis, and judging by them, it appears notable enough (I am aware of the "Other Stuff Exists" rule). There is also a possible COI here. Could you please look at it and edit it if necessary? If there's a better process for doing this, please let me know.[[User:Kevinbrogers|Kevinbrogers]] ([[User talk:Kevinbrogers|talk]]) 07:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

==Vox Pop==


Just noticed that the page is nominated for deletion. Also spotted someone removed the notability tag. Two questions - how do you advise I make the page more notable and why is it nominated for deletion?--[[User:Alexanderryland|Alexanderryland]] ([[User talk:Alexanderryland|talk]]) 16:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:02, 19 September 2009


Paul Nguyen

Hello Orangemike, please reactivate this page you nominated for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nguyen Paul is a notable social activist from the Jane and Finch neighborhood. Supporting links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERTLIJCPYbk and http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lostinthestruggle/filmmaker.html


Ray Blanton

Reason for reversion was noted in comments accompanying reversion. The reversion was engaged primarily because of the anonymous source. Blanton's article, much like Bill Janklow's article, has been an ongoing target of apparent anonymous IP "sniping." Whatever the potential (and debatable) merits of those edits, their objective has seemed to be primarily to denigrate the subject of the biography. I always try to discourage negative edits to Wikipedia articles by anonymous IP users. As an aside...your comments "if I'd won my race in 1974, I'd have been fellow Democrat Blanton's state representative!" were quite fascinating...and its interesting that you are from that area. Ray Blanton himself was, surely, an intriguing fellow. He seems to have been more of the "old guard" crony-type of politician, I gather. As his post-governor "career" played out, I felt somewhat sorry for him (should I?). Adamsville, Tennessee, is also in McNairy County, I believe...home of that legend Buford Pusser! Best regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWMNPoliSciProject (talkcontribs)

Storefrontbacktalk

I saw that did a speedy deletion on storefrontbacktalk. You should have at least put a speedy deletion tag on it so the matter could have be discussed on some level. The article is quoted in two other articles. A hangon probably could have saved it. Americasroof (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've userfied this to User talk:Americasroof/StorefrontBacktalk, I agree with you that it doesn't look like it is notable, but maybe this editor can find some sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be User:Americasroof/StorefrontBacktalk? User:Americasroof is an editor I trust, unlike the original COI spammer; and I wish him/her luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to reintroduce the article unless it is clear it will pass the now increased scrutiny. I don't want to waste a lot of time on this. A lot of mainstream media quotes the site which has a niche in reporting on technology at retail store. The site does actual interviews and doesn't just reguergitate other sites. Here's a google. It has been at the forefront of the reporting on the Albert Gonzalez case (and the reason I'm even discussing it). Will saying it is widely reported by mainstream media and listing some of the links meet your notability concerns? Americasroof (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your username block of User:Holocausttaskforce. For what it's worth in the event a similar situation arises again, given the nature of this organization and the obvious good-faith nature of the contributions, I would have rather seen an attempt to discuss the situation with the user prior to blocking. Just a thought. I've left a note on the user's talkpage which I hope you will find unobjectionable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the block as well. You probably saw that on their talk page I mentioned the possible problem with the user name (just below the welcome message I left), and although I can understand the principle behind blocking the account, I feel that the user should have been given an opportunity to respond to the advice to change their user name. I placed that advice a few minutes after the user's last contribution, so it is possible that they are offline and have not had the chance to read the message and try to change their user name. I know you are a much more experienced editor than I am, but my impression was that we give users the opportunity to sort out problems themselves - if they don't (or actively refuse to) then they can be blocked. Is there some policy or guideline that says that a user should be blocked before given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the problem? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response on my talkpage, and for explaining your reasoning. I understand it, even if I'm not 100% I agree with it in this particular instance . -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have them on your watch list, but they have request an unblock so that they can put in a change-name request. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman)

Why was this page deleted? I found a lot of the information on the page useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.224.173 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcyclist). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i read that talk page before i made my last comment. Those comments are more than a year old, and are reffering to a previous version of that article. Did you base the deletion on those comments alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.224.173 (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

I appreciate the comment you made on my talk page. As I said to Modernist, this was not a planned retirement, and it was only an escalating incident that pushed me in this direction. Alas. Thanks again. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

I noticed you pulled links off this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_letter_writers

-

-

At the time I added the link to my site I did not know this was in violation of the rules, so I am fine with the removal of my own site, but I am unclear why the other two came off. You obviously spend a lot more time on here than I do (so if this is the wrong place to contact you, or if I am making some other error, let me know), so I figure there's going to be a reason that makes sense, but these three links (including mine) seem to fall within the scope of that page. What am I missing?

Christopher L. Jorgensen (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions (Part 2)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I get the argument for "notability," but in this case that page is a list of people who write spoof/hoax letters. On the notability page there is also a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules It seems to me, the best argument for reinstating some of those links (I agree not all), is that the page was a great resource for finding this material. Due to the nature of the words "hoax" or "spoof" simple google searches return poor results. Having this page as a resource is helpful. It was also a lot funnier perviously (though that's not an argument in favor of keeping some of the links).

I admit I have an interest in this subject, but I am actually glad you removed my site, since an unbiased addition would be better. Still, I think your edits were a bit too brutal. Many of those links were quality links and well within the subject. There's not tons of people doing this, so excluding any from the list, unless spammy or of questionable quality seems wrong to me. But that's just me. Christopher L. Jorgensen (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory. The arguments that you find a given list useful or interesting are not considered valid arguments for why this information about non-notable people needs to be in Wikipedia. There is nothing in the world preventing you from setting up your own website about hoax/spoof letterwriters, websites, etc.; but the Wikimedia Foundation is under no obligation to play host for it. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Hello again, Orangemike … I have updated my biography, and thought I'd ping you to check out the changes. :-) Happy Editing! — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) 05:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx fer the cleanups and cats … even if it's just putting some lipstick on a pig. :-) — 138.88.43.201 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the names of my maternal grandfather's parents, John and Christina Greenfied, so I updated my famly tree… they both died before I was born, so I never knew them. — 138.88.43.201 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sensage??!?

Mike...just curious what your motivation was for deleting the SenSage page? Are you planning to delete all pages that include software such as Linux and MS Windows? I do not work for that company but I was researching that company for a possible purchase. Thanks for making my life a little harder today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.197.9 (talkcontribs)

Despite the tone of this unsigned note, I went back and reviewed the article in question (SenSage). I decided that I and the nominator had been wrong: it could be despammed; so I restored it, and have had my first stab at despamming it. A lot of the "references" were to press releases, and will have to be replaced. Thanks for the learning experience, anonymous and unsigned IP. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking up everything

Mike, I'd like to know why you deleted my page. I am not trying to promote for this show I am simply providing a background of the history of how it was conceived. Many shows have similar information and I am not trying to sell it onto anyone, simply giving a background of information. Please restore the page 'Fucking up Everything'. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy FUE (talkcontribs)

Apologies, that looked like pure vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Coswill Entry Needed Help

I was trying to make the John Coswill entry more accurate and provide a current picture of his face (unlike the one posted of his back). I don't get paid to do this, so I don't see the conflict of interest. However, I am considered to be a historian in regard to the Beach Boys and thought Wikipedia would appreciate the constructive edits, including the unlimited usage of the image uploaded. musicbbbtom (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2009


Surenos

Mike, I wasn't even aware that there was a prod on the article (I'm guessing prod since there was no AfD) about the Surenos. They definately are notable, one of the largest criminal gangs in the US. Could you put the article somewhere that I could work on it in my spare time and get it up to standards in terms of reliable sourcing and notability demonstration? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok, I just realized it was speedy deleted. I can't remember off the top of my head what, if any sources, the article had, but I am certain I can establish their notability for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Surenos (Sur 13) are intense rivals of the Notenos (Nortes, represented by 14). Essentially California is divided in half (at Bakersfield), but if you'll notice, the sources I'm thorwing up here quickly are from all around the US, not just Cali, demonstrating they are more than localized. Here are a few quick sources that will show you I'm not off my rocker when I tell you I'll be able to establish notability: I especially like this one, where the St. Paul, MN city council went to court in an attempt to ban the Surenos from the annual Cinco de Mayo festival: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Mike. Yeah, it definately needs work. I'll see what I can do with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my User Page at Your Suggestion

Hello. I have updated my user page in light of your suggestion that I list some of my biases. Well here's a start (more to come). Please let me know what you think.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a candidate for the tinfoil-hat brigade. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User name

Apparently my name means that on does not have to AGF : [13].--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty. Sorry that I had to bother you, but it seemed egregious enough.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look

Could you take a look at the recent discussion at Talk:Chicago-style_pizza#Poor_.22flat_pizza.22_reference? I'm in what looks like a possible edit war with an anonymous user. Shsilver (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood

Thanks for explaining this minor detail. I was thinking about writing my own article, somewhere where I could keep resources and things. If people vandalised it then it would present a problem. That's why I asked if a private page could be made. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, the first time I saw the article was worst than now , but is true that the beach is a hotpoint, with lovely hotels, resorts, and small pousadas (something like B&B). Its also true, that has been elected for 8 times in a row as the best brazilian beach by a specialized travel magazine. That's why I have included one photo in the resort article, because this beach is considered a resort beach.(Angenhariaus (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]


RFID Guardian

This is the page for a research project -- not a commercial product. So how you can call it 'advertising' is beyond me. Please restore the deleted page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.193.158 (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotion" is by no means limited to commercial products. Wikipedia can't be used to promote your research project, your campus club, your political party, your elementary-school soccer team, your girlfriend's smile, your church charity or the new word you made up at the bar last night. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFID Guardian

This page is not 'advertising'.. it describes a university research project -- not a commercial product. Also, anyone interested in RFID security and privacy considers the RFID Guardian to be notable. So please restore the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.193.158 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of Google News shows that 2007 and before it is mentioned as a prototype - and most mentions are at most 2 or 3 sentences, or are on blogs. After 2007, all the references are single-sentence mentions. I can see no evidence of notability for this product. I didn't see the article, however a quick search for possible references that could be used show no third-party independent significant verification of notability, so I would say that OrangeMike was correct to delete it, as it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you can provide good references showing its notability (mentioned in reliable sources), then list them here - then OrangeMike can take that into consideration. However, bear in mind that blogs cannot be used as sources, the research project's web pages are not independent, and that the criteria for inclusion is significant references - a couple-of-sentence reference would not meet the criteria. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of Le Zombie

The article Le Zombie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No attempt to argue for any notability, no independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate notability. Just some fanzine.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Oh crap. I thought you weren't supposed to remove AfD templates. There is something about the deletion process that they create other pages and removing them leaves orphaned "delete" pages and such. But this says to remove the template. What happened to discussion? How is anyone supposed to weigh in on the subject if the only mention of it is removed from the page? Padillah (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of Dartford Living

I notice that you have deleted the entry for Dartford Living. Could it be restored fully and we'll delete the offending parts? ie the parts deemed to be advertising. We have tried to model our entry on other newspapers and magazines in the UK.

Regards

AbdelHK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhk (talkcontribs) 00:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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


Worldcon GoH Category

There is another attempt to delete the Worldcon GoH category. Since you participated in the last discussion, I thought you might be interested.Shsilver (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Story points

Just a friendly heads up on Story points. An editor at WP:REFUND asked for this to be restored and a {{hangon}} tag had been added to the article before deletion, so I'm seeing this as a doubly contested prod and have therefore restored the article. I advised the requester to address the issues in your prod tag before someone takes it to AfD, which, naturally, you are more than welcome to do. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Le Zombie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Zombie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And he now claims that Warner's All Our Yesterdays doesn't meet RS. Shsilver (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Absolute

I agree with your advice at the help desk regarding the Mistress Absolute article; I just wanted to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Feedback#Mistress_Absolutes_Entry. As you can see, Malstrome has been given advice and chosen not to take it. As I noted, even if she took all my advice, it still probably wouldn't be acceptable, but there's no evidence that she attempted to address the suggestions I gave.SPhilbrickT 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Please comment on Zenfolio stub at my talk page. I appreciate very much. Thank you. ESCapade (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for this. [14] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike, thank you for your kind and gentle advice re: my preferences. I'm so new at this I sometimes feel like I'm navigating a new planet! You mentioned in my talk that I should set my preferences to email this user, which I have done. You suggested this because I'd included my real email in my message to Friday correct? I think he deleted it very soon after which was nice of him. BTW, WTF are spiders? Some kind of trolling bot that searches for content such as email addresses? Thnks.

BTW, I'm getting ready to upload my first article draft into my sandbox. I'd totally appreciate any guidance you could give and will let you know when it goes up.

THANK YOU!Tanyavansoest (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question RE: anon vandalism

There's an anon that's been vandalizing an article but never quite let themselves get blocked. They manage to annoy until they get 3 or 4 warnings and then they pull back until the next month. Should I still report this to AN/V? How long do they get to pull this stunt until they get blocked? Padillah (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could take a look at this article and see if it is notable/good/objective enough to be posted. I used other Marching Band pages as a basis, and judging by them, it appears notable enough (I am aware of the "Other Stuff Exists" rule). There is also a possible COI here. Could you please look at it and edit it if necessary? If there's a better process for doing this, please let me know.Kevinbrogers (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Pop

Just noticed that the page is nominated for deletion. Also spotted someone removed the notability tag. Two questions - how do you advise I make the page more notable and why is it nominated for deletion?--Alexanderryland (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]