User talk:OrangeDog

Articles for deletion nomination of Open Watcom Assembler

I have nominated Open Watcom Assembler, 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/Open Watcom Assembler. 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. Pcap ping 08:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, OrangeDog. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia keeps all history

I was led to believe that all history is kept, but this is all rather strange. When I created the NavBox I looked at all the assemblers that were available before putting the NavBox in the article. Only the assemblers with no internal article missed out and ended up red-lettered. WASM wasn't one of them. I saw the article at that time (25th Jan) and there wasn't much there, but it was there and was there since at least August with the same name. Where is that, given that the current WASM (software) only got there on 28th Jan? -- spin^control 21:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Typeface list collaboration goals

Can we set some particular goals? Please answer at: Wikipedia talk:Typeface list collaboration#Particular goals--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the collaboration. I hope that others will begin to contribute when you and I have slowed down or stopped. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bishop xirouhakis.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy OrangeDog's Day!

User:OrangeDog has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as OrangeDog's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear OrangeDog! Peace, Rlevse 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't edit

I did look at the Help information stored on my computer but couldn't find anything related. I'll look at the site you suggested when I'm at a library. I don't go to unfamiliar sites at home.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Further information may be posted here. No one has responded, though for some reason the link I put there was wrong.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

B-Rixdorf

Hi and thanks for the hint on my page, I think I will make it this way. Regards, -jkb- (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RFCU Cush

Hey you probaly missed the fact that RFCU was closed and Archived, so i reverted it. if you feel strongly about it you can bring it up again in new one but at this point that one is closed. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, how did I miss that? Ah well, I was hoping he would get to read the second paragraph in particular. If another one does come up, could you drop me a line and I'll see if it's still appropriate. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly two RFCU in less than a year, it wont be long before he pisses someone else off with his anti theist crusade. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

CSD discussion

I'm taking a lot of offense at this comment, and I'm going to tell you why here rather than disrupt the discussion.

I feel very much that you are not understanding what NPPs do. We act as the screen for every single article that passes through Special:Newpages. We are not deletion-obsessed. We improve the substandard articles we find. We add tags to the articles that need them. We search for references for articles that are unreferenced. We fix incorrectly-formatted templates and links, and spelling errors and broken refs.

That's all we do for your standard "good" new article.

Most of them, however, are not "good". These articles can be one of a variety of things. Some are pure vandalism and attack pages. Some are 11-year-old kids writing about themselves, what school they go to, what their dog's name is, etc. Some are articles by corporations about corporations. And some are essays and some are neologisms. Those are the most common kinds of problem articles.

We deal with them there and then so that the rest of the wiki doesn't have to. If we're looking for references for an article and we can't find any, we tag it too. It is not a fun job. Some of the creators fight back. When you characterize us as "trying to prevent the creator from having any input", what you're really referring to is this and this and this and this. These creators are not young, bright-eyed little new users who are being stifled and driven away by our cold black hearts. We are not evil, and we do not get a kick out of this. We do an unglamourous, repetitive task that is constantly under fire from users who share your viewpoint. I would like very much to see you try new page patrolling for a week and emerge with the same opinion that you hold of us now. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No personal offence meant, I was just highlighting the picture that the comments of the proposers were painting. I confess to not paying much attention to who in particular I am replying to, so some of what I said may not apply to you. While you are entitled to your opinion, but given that, as you point out, many people disagree, have you considered that you may not be entirely correct? Perhaps try creating new articles as an IP and see how you are treated (a number of people have done this, and the reports don't paint a friendly picture).

How can you possibly judge what kind of editor User:Mandygcruz is going to be? He's two days old and has only made five edits. Admittedly, these appear to be ill-advised self promotion, but could well be a good-faith misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Writing him off as a good-for-nothing vandal without attempting to explain anything is not the best way to go about doing things.

Of the issues you describe above, essays are usually best dealt with by re-writing and neologisms by re-direction, not with deletion. Note that these are the two that don't have CSDs, because they are not cases when instant deletion is always the best thing to do. The main issue I have is with Timneu22's complaint about over-loaded AfD while outright dismissing the use of PROD. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, resentment of PROD comes from field experience. If you need to delete an unquestionably problematic article that doesn't fall under CSD, it feels better to get some eyes on the article, at least. You see, working as a new page patroller you tend to develop the same sense of haste that RC patrollers feel. You don't like to see a blatantly problematic article sit there with a PROD on it and know that nobody is there to watch it for a week except you. So AFD feels, I don't know, more reliable.

With regard to users such as User:Mandygcruz... sigh. I used to believe that too once. I used to believe that every user was fundamentally good, and every vandal could be convinced otherwise. When I first registered and started patrolling RC, I would leave every vandal a heartwarming message about how they could turn around and become a productive user. Heh. I no longer believe that. You can't think of every account as a person. Almost all of them are there for some reason or another- trolling, spamming, getting a kick out of vandalizing. SPAs. I really love it when I see a productive new user, because nowadays I see so few.

Meh, I'm getting off topic. I'm actually finding that perhaps essays and neologisms are barely sometimes notable enough that they should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Convenient as it may be to have some extra criteria... ALI ^{nom nom} 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Help:English to Latin Translation

Hello! I need some help on English to Latin translation. Please help me to translate the following list of english words to Latin.

• Bishop of Rome
• Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
• Patriarch of Alexandria
• Patriarch of Antioch
• Patriarch of Jerusalem

Thank you. Amit6 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They're all listed here. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigs

Hi OrangeDoc, I noticed that you undid my removal of this external link. I hadn't really checked whether the link provided useful information to the article. My removal was part of reverting a string of spam link edits made by C.Bluck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to be a single purpose account on a mission to advertise this site. If you look at their home page, you can easily see that it is a commercial site, which i.m.o. does not qualify as a WP:EL, although, perhaps, like you say, in this case it might provide useful information. I checked a few other entries which clearly added nothing to the article in which they were inserted. Also note that some of this user's edits where nothing more than stressing the fact that "this is a Bigs animation". So, I have removed that particular advertising phrase from the links section entry but kept the entry. I'll leave it to your discretion to keep or decide to remove the link itself after all, if/when you might find a suitable alternative on some non-commercial site. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)