User talk:Orangemike

Kickstarter NPOV complaint

Curious, why does Kickstarter not seem neutral to you? It seemed OK to me to drop the notice after some article cleanup in September --Jamiew (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the cutesie-poo pull quote from something called the Miami New Times that most rang my alarms. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote is a joke Mike, as I think you know. If you check out the sources, you'll see there isn't a lot of bad to be said about it. Anyway, if you really think it needs work, please add some suggestions on the talk page if you're going to bring up issues of NPOV or notability. Steven Walling 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lebron hired Pinto

Pinto was paid by Lebron - That should be amended. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/LeBron-James-hires-rabbi-to-consult-on-business-?urn=nba-261513

Death Curse Obstfeld

The concept of Pinto death curse & possible involvement in Obstfeld death is worthy of Mention here. Do others agree ? http://www.vosizneias.com/58354/2010/06/21/new-york-claim-israeli-rabbi-put-death-curse-on-obstfeld/ http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/

65.112.21.194 is biased

If you review this person's edits on Rabbi Pinto's page, you would see that he has completely overhauled what was once a very neutral account. He included biases and even offered offensive comments in the edit history section (e.g., "Let Pinto lecture to Lebron not Jews"). To make this person happy, only negative elements would be included in the entry. I chose to edit the page so that it more accurately reflected a NPOV and was inline with Wiki's guidelines. 65.112.21.194 only wants to publish contentious and harmful gossip. - Beobjectiveplease —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

This person vandalized Rabbi Pinto's Wiki page last night. Also added libelous material that he was then warned for (he then re-added it this morning). Just wanted to highlight this. He has also made offensive remarks about Jewish faith. Biases are apparent. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

List of most expensive Video games

You have proded the article List of most expensive Video games because of Non-encyclopedic topic, sourced to basically only two websites of arguable reliability but i can surely say that it is an encyclopedic topic as there are many more article like this egList of most expensive films Rahul^{Text me} 08:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read that but there is one more thing WP:ALLORNOTHINGRahul^{Text me} 08:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? Both of those articles indicate that your argument for retention is without merit. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

ahh my mistake got confused but come on why can we have an article on video games if there is on films,paintings,Music,Photograph etc Rahul^{Text me} 08:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Boris Willis

Hello, you've tagged Boris Willis for AFD and added it to the log, but there's no AFD yet. The article's creator (a new editor) is getting antsy and removing the AFD tag with the broken link. I'm finding a lot of cites for him in the Wash Post and Kennedy Center, and have added a few already: any chance you might reconsider the AFD? Thanks very much, Top Jim (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Article's creator has now gone ahead and created the AFD discussion page, by the way. Top Jim (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it there, then. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But don't you need to actually create the nomination on the discussion page, with reasons for deletion etc? All that's there at the moment is a "don't delete" comment from the article's creator. I thought a nomination was required per WP:AFD. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

History of Tiruchirappalli

I had started the article only in order to imnplement Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) which is of course one of the requirements for a WP:FAC. It is not my intention to disrupt Wikipedia or interfere with its working. Regards.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 08:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Natalia Wörner

OK with me that you're a deletionist, myself being an inclusionist: we can surely reach an agreement or a middle ground on when to keep and delete an article. I would, though, appreciate that you marked articles for deletion before actually deleting them. Thank you very much. Ictlogist (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom Gliatto

Hello. Today you deleted Tom Gliatto based on "No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)". The discussion page clearly stated that this author had several dozen articles linked to him from other articles and the "What links here" for Tom Gliatto gives evidence of his significance even as a stub.

If you could, please "undelete" this page and its talk page and if you would like to contest its validity, please do so with the appropriate method of tagging it and having it up for discussion. Thanks! - Team4Technologies (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article gave us nothing to indicate that the subject is notable in any way. The discussion page did nothing to indicate that he is notable; all it said is that articles of his have been cited in Wikipedia. Being a footnote does not make the author of the cited article notable; notability is not contagious; writing about a notable topic does not thereby make the writer notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

HEdSTART

The HEdSTART page created last night was deleted within hours of creation despite the following text on the Speedy Deletion page:

'Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.'

Coming back to add to it this morning I see it gone. Obviously I'm obliged to leave a message here and would like the page restored so that I can add to it. In addition I think the following needs to be questioned - as the idea that I'm writing about is a developing programme, the amount that can be written on it will change in time and continue to develop, therefore there is only a limit to what the article can contain at this time. So, would that also be deleted? If so, doesn't that counter the very nature of the internet and it's immediacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmorrismjm (talk • contribs) 13:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire article consisted of "HEdSTART is an innovative approach to Teaching and Learning at Post 16" at a school. This is meaningless and pointless, impossible to decipher for the reader. "innovative"? "approach to Teaching and Learning"? "Post 16"? the language you quote is not meant to say that we can accept a promisory note in lieu of an article. Also: if this is a "developing programme", that seems to indicate that this is not presently notable in any way, and thus does not have a place in Wikipedia. Despite your theory that immediacy is the heart of the internet, it is not the heart of Wikipedia. Our goal is to gather together the best available information about topics already notable, topics already taken note of by the rest of humanity in reliable sources and thus notable enough to be described in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Step in to this please

I am tired of reverting changes to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion being made by an admin (Now two admin) without any real consensus as to wording. There is a very long discussion that starts here and has ended up at this point: F9 and F7 proposals. (See also talk page dif that relates) At this point I am asking for your opinion *and* see if you feel there is any sort of consensus about changes as made as you are someone who has been uninvolved in the discussion. Much appreciated. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hearing Aid - Buyahearingaid.com

Dear Orangemike,

Thank you for your message on mytalk. I would like to discuss our buyahearingaid.com link being deleted from the hearing aid page. Our website was created to help the consumer researching hearing loss and hearing aids. We have unique high quality content written by people that work in the hearing aid industry for years. We have the biggest and most comprehensive database of hearing aid models and manufacturers. We have no annoying advertising. I can see sites which are in the external list that I am not pointing to whose sole idea is to make adsense and marketing profit. Therefore I find quite unfair to delete my link which provides unbiased and easy to understand information with high quality design compared to cluttered websites full of ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdimov (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you see spamlinks in other article, please feel encouraged to remove them. You are openly admitting that you are connected to this website. Wikipedia is not here to promote your website or anybody else's. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to remove any websites from the list. I want to understand what it takes to have our site listed there because it is credible and viable resource of information and we belong there.(talk • contribs)

See WP:EL#ADV - pretty clear on this point. – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Droll

There a thread at the WP:BLPN here a user claiming to be the subject disputing some claims, you are more likely to be better able to deal with it, thanks. You seem to have replaced one part that he disputes that he has left anything and is still president and seems to be correct and verified here http://www.capmin.org/ Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Britain and the World

I disagree with your speedy of this article. It had a prod tag on it, and it may have been deletable by that method. However, "Publishing with Edinburgh University Press from 2011, Britain and the World: Historical Journal of the British Scholar Society is a journal of 'British world' history. Formerly, British Scholar, the journal is published biannually and includes original research articles, book reviews and review essays on Britain's global history in the modern era. For more information and to browse journal content, visit: http://www.euppublishing.com/journal/brw." does not seem unambiguously promotional. Can you explain why you deleted it as such? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The article was created by a spammer account for the journal's publisher. 2. "For more information, visit..." is definitive advertising language. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those make it unambiguously promotional. In fact, if you remove the final sentence it doesn't really seem promotional at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not ready for mainspace

I've moved Tour Egypt to an AFC subpage because it does not meet our quality guidelines. For additional information as to why I performed this action, please see my comments at this section.  Ⓢock  01:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopian Global Initiative

Hi, Mike. It looks like this organization used to be called the Ethiopian American Youth Initiative, and their website URL, http://www.ethusa.org/, matches the username of the creator of the article. Judging by http://www.ethusa.org/home, it appears the organization was rebranded the Ethiopian Global Initiative or was folded into the larger organization. Your call, but this looks like spam to me. I agree it wasn't a candidate for A7 since it made a plausible claim to notability. The username also violates WP:U. Bonus points: the editor reposted the article with the SD tag included. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Right2bet on the 18th of October

Hello Mike,

I believe it was you who deleted an article I posted last month entitled 'Right2bet' - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right2bet&action=edit&redlink=1

I am a long time reader of Wikipedia, but this is the first time I have ever tried to write an article. I am genuinely prepared to try my best to comply with Wikipedia's standards, but obviously I failed in my first attempt. I know you are an advocate for quality articles on the site, as am I, so I am planning to do a complete rewrite of the entry in order to make it acceptable.

Before I do so, I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the specific elements of the article that were unacceptable, so that I can target them. Generic feedback such as "It's written like an advert", although entirely relevant, is hard for me to make practical use of simply because I'm so inexperienced at contributing to Wikipedia at this stage. I know this kind of response is more of a hassle, but if you can spare 5 minutes it would make a huge difference to my attempt to write a quality, admissible first article.

As far as relevance is concerned, the association to which the article refers is the non-profit consumer freedoms organisation within the European gaming sector. It has received press coverage, has thousands of supporters, including major industry organisations, and falls into very much the same catagory as other consumer groups such as CAMRA, the Center for Consumer Freedom, Fathers4Justice, and the Poker Players Alliance (our nearest US equivalent). All of these have articles on Wikipedia, so I believe it would be entirely consistent for Right2bet to be included on the same basis. This would also add to the completeness of Wikipedia as a resource, as coverage of gaming regulation from a European angle is currently quite limited within the encyclopedia.

Thank you for taking the time to advise on this, I do appreciate it, especially as a new contributor.

1234betting (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was JamesBWatson who deleted it as an advertisement. That said, I'll try to answer your questions. Let's start with your username. While nobody has yet chosen to block you, it implies that you are here to argue "for betting" (i.e., as an advocate for expanded gambling). Such a username creates a suspicion of lack of the mandatory neutral point of view. Then look at the language: the deleted article takes everything this organization says for granted, from its claim to be a consumer organization rather than what Americans call astroturfing (i.e., artificial imitation grassroots) funded by the gambling industry; to the simple recounting of the organization's position on the applicability of human rights statutes to gambling without mentioning the challenges to that position. There is nothing of substance in the deleted article to indicate that the group has been criticized by anybody on the planet other than nameless and eviallll government forces. Here are some itemized problems in the deleted version:

"consumer campaign" (actually, funded by the gambling industry [Betfair, Ladbrokes and Bet365], or so I've read)

"which champions" that's a pretty non-neutral verb

"the right of European citizens to bet with any online gaming provider, regardless of their country of origin" just simply assumes that such a right exists, with no hint that some consider this a bogus claim with no discernible origin in the Universal Declaration or anywhere else

"Cause" again, non-neutral word

"consumer freedom groups" non-neutral wording

"Arguments" - entire section taken verbatim from the subject's own website, with no hint of the idea that they may be wrong

"they refute claims" - non-neutral language; and do they actually refute the opposition, or just disagree with it?

Hope I've clarified things for you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the precise feedback, Mike, that is what I was looking for, and it will be helpful. I will take your advice and try again.--1234betting (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Contribution Team

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate on the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team, or WP:CONTRIB for short! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions specifically to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to wikiproject outreach, article improvement, donor contacting, and more -- in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks -- whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you. If this sounds of interest to you, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the Contribution talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

hello from the Noreen Crayton

I noticed that you would like the article that I wrote regarding my father, Spurgeon E. Crayton. Please understand, in no way, am I trying to promote myself using this page. Just as you are seeking to respect the integrity of Wikipedia, I want to do the same for him. I created the page because I thought that he deserved recognition for his contributions particularly in the town of Amityville in creating the halfway house and trying to clean up an extremely rough neighborhood. I have not even added anything about myself on there because it is not about me but about him. Now if you feel that he doesn't deserve, than fine. Ask for it to be deleted. The reason is most definitely not because I want to promote myself or my music.

delete away! we'll find a way to get his work out another way

Many thanks, Noreen Crayton

Noreencrayton (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I notice that the first version of the article, the one you initially created, referred to you and your musical career by name. As to the rest: I take no delight in seeing articles deleted; but I do insist that they meet our standards of notability, impartiality, and verifiability. Note, as always, that Wikipedia is not here to promote anybody's noble cause or good name. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was copying and pasting portions from my website which was promoting his street naming ceremony however, once I remembered it was there, I removed it. I take issue with the fact that you posted for all the world to see that I was trying to do that on the article that was actually published and if one read the article they would see that nothing about was no where on it. That's actually potentially libel behavior on your part towards me. Also, it seemed as though you did not read the article, you just saw the back end which is very unfortunate. Further, it wasn't just anybody's noble cause, he was one of the organizers of the Alba-Neck Halfway House which was for drug addicted patients, a noble cause which he didn't invent. That halfway house was the forerunner to Apple Inc. a very large rehabilitation foundation. But no worries, you've done your job rooted out the riff raff. I blanked the page and had it deleted rather than go back and forth as to whether the subject was worth it or not. Awesome work on your part! God bless! Noreencrayton (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I resent that remark; I am the riffraff, a resident of the inner city one generation out of the Tennessee cotton fields! But as an administrator, one of my duties is to hold folks with whom I sympathize and identify to the same standards that I do the folks I dislike; and vice versa. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings; it's the kind of thing that leads us to so strongly discourage folks from writing about the things they love the most. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

lol, no, you didn't hurt my feelings but angered me with your assumption and extremely public post that I was trying to promote myself through my father's life. That was a blatant attack on me and the integrity and intent on why I created the article in the first place. You could have merely posted that the subject was not notable enough to warrant a page and recommend deletion. I would have respected that and not fought it. You went for the jugular (my jugular), come on, admit it:) Believe me, if I didn't think he warranted an article, I would have never thought to create it, however, when the town named a street after him, my thought was, 'one day someone is going to want to read about the person this street is named after and why it is so.' THAT was why I created the page. What better place to put his achievements than on Wikipedia? Lastly, it is not clear to me as to how you are implying that I called you riff raff. I was being sarcastic and felt as though how you went about recommending deletion was treating the article as riff raff. This is what I know: it seemed to me as though you never read the latest version of the article but just researched how it was created. If you had read it the latest version, you would have seen that I provided references, the subjects complete bibliography with isbn numbers and communicated the rest of the bio clearly along the guidelines Wikipedia requested. By your own admission, you read an early version created on my username page and made a decision based on that. Then, you posted your inaccurate conclusion for all the world to see. That's what you did. Now, I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings with the 'riff raff' comment. However (and there is no sarcastic intent behind this), in the big scheme of things, it's not as intense as it seems. It was an article on someone who did a few huge things and had a street named after him...... so all the best to you:) Noreencrayton (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got a couple of friends and mentors here in Milwaukee who've had streets named after them. Even though they were not kin, I've not tried to create articles about them. I do hope you will contribute to articles in other parts of Wikipedia. There's more to Amityville, I know, than bad occult books and worse movies! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

False reporting by Edit Filter

Hi! I see that you are often dealing with False reports by Edit Filters.

Could you please take a look here:

Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#188.25.174.118_3

I'm trying to add a section about New Zealad, but it has been repeatedly stopped by the Filter. I have submitted several reports of False Positive, but I've got no response.

Thanks. 188.25.174.118 (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Filters are software, dumb programs; the filter interprets your posting as an accusation of these actions! Somebody else is working on this with the filter folks. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks a lot. 188.25.175.226 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto 2

Hello Orangemike. I mentioned your name and Diannaa's when closing this 3RR case: WP:AN3#User:68.173.122.113 and User:Photocredit reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Semiprotected). EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Architects' Alliance of Ireland

Hi orangemike,

You have proposed my article about Architects' Alliance of Ireland for speedy deletion, why?

I have considered attentively all the wikipedia "notability standards" prior to create the article.

Architects' Alliance of Ireland is a "Nationally famous local organizations". All Irish Architects are aware of the association and its actions. It complies with Wikipedia notability criteria for non-commercial organizations. It also complies with Primary criteria for notability. Architects' Alliance of Ireland actions were covered by Irish Media such as The Irish Times, The Irish Independent, RTE. The article includes links to National Newspapers articles and to a web site of the Irish Government where minutes of a public meeting between members of the Irish Government, representatives of Architects' Alliance and Directors of the RIAI exchanged their views on the system and legislation related to the registration of architects in Ireland.

You are accusing my article of being biased. I have tried my best to write this article in a neutral way. I have compared the article with the RIAI article; the RIAI is the direct competitor of Architects' Alliance on the issue of registration in the Republic of Ireland. Can you explain why you considered that the article is biased?

You are accusing my article of being written like advertising. However, the article only informs on Architects' Alliance of Ireland. Nothing in the content support the cause of the association, nothing promotes the association or appeal for the reader to join the association. The content of the article is only descriptive.

I am not sure if it is that you have not read and considered the subject attentively or if it is that you are opposed to Architects' Alliance of Ireland line of actions and what it represents. We can discuss the subject, but the article is not biased, or if it is, please tell me which part is biased. Or do you mean that it is biased to create an article on this association? I will be waiting for you at the article discussion page. I am sorry, but I feel that your proposal for speedy deletion is out of order and I am curious to know your reasons for making such request. --Christophe Krief (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike, I though that anyone with good intentions would have started the dialogue before proposing to delete the article.

I was a member of the association; I am not anymore due to divergence of ideas. I am still sharing similar interests with the group. However, I think that anyone with an interest in Architects’ Alliance of Ireland, would either be opposed or in agreement with their position, it is difficult to be in-between.

I think that no-one uninterested with the registration of architects in Ireland is aware of Architects’ Alliance, but everyone with such interest know who they are and what they stand for.

I am trying to explain that people who do not have an interest in the matter of architects’ registration in Ireland, do not know the Association. The opponents and those who disagree with Architects’ Alliance will not create an article on the association. The creation of an article about a group which has a political agenda is in itself an engagement, but it does not make the article biased.

The idea of this article was to make public the existing conflict between academically qualified architects and the so-called self-trained / self-taught architects. It happens that Architects’ Alliance represents the self-taught and that they did not have a page in Wikipedia despite being compatible with Wiki standards for notability.

The fact is that the direct opponent of Architects’ Alliance has its page on Wikipedia. If you consider the article on the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI), it was surely created by members of the Institute if not some of their employees. The RIAI page does not stipulate that the RIAI has misled the public when advertising on national radio. It does not stipulate that the RIAI has campaigned for years to gain a monopoly in the Republic of Ireland. It does not inform on misleading information issued by the Institute regarding compliance with EU Law. The RIAI article does not explain that the RIAI has created the most expensive examination for the purpose of registering self-taught architects. The Irish examination for self-taught architects is 3 times mor expensive than its US / Canada equivalent and 4 times the cost of its Dutch equivalent.

I think that, if there is still a problem of neutrality with the Architects’ Alliance article after the latest revision that I carried out, then there is the same problem with the RIAI article which does not give details on the strong opposition against the institute having been appointed as the registration body. A survey of approximately 500 persons interested in the subject show that about 60% would have preferred a new body to be created rather than the RIAI to carry out this task. Only approx. 26% support the RIAI as the registration body for architects. If you do not remove the neutrality banner on this article, then you should also ad one on the RIAI page.

I hope to hear from you again on this matter

Regards --Christophe Krief (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Murray reference removals

Thanks for the AGF on the new sources. While I always feel it is patently obvious that a major party candidate for federal office is notable, I do understand where others do not. I had never come across the blacklist problem with the examiner(dot)com site before, and did not realize it was unacceptable as a resource. Lesson learned. I do, however, disagree with the "blog" removal. All newspapers that I am aware of excercise the same level of editorial control over their columnists blogs that they use on their printed articles. I have not yet seen any evidence to the contrary, and the source is still the same publisher as the printed resource. Unless you have evidence that the Weekly Standard excercises different editorial and fact checking controls over its online blog postings than it does from its printed news pieces, I would request that you restore the ROTC comment and the reference, as well as note such in the AfD. AFAIK, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the publisher, and no reason to distinguish between their online and print stories. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard piece is not a reliable source, either; the blogginess, I concede, is not the issue here, but rather the shameless lack of neutrality of the post you cited, from the partisan headline to the biased language. That wasn't news reportage, it was a go-for-the-crotch attack on Moran. If this is a genuine incident, it should have been covered in the actual press (conservative or liberal), not just in the conservative equivalent of the old Daily Worker. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of afd discussion

Hi, a page you speedily deleted on Wednesday has been recreated and speedy deletion on it declined. I have started a deletion discussion at afd about this page and wondered if you had an opinion on whether the new version of the page should remain on Wikipedia. The deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yousuf Miah. -- role^player 02:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Funk Page Thank-You

Hi Orangemike,

Thanks much for the help with the "T. Markus Funk" entry - they ran Chicago ABC News profile on him today, which motivated me to get this entry done. I am new to this, so, again, thanks for helping me/us out! (And any future suggestion on this or other entries is much appreciated!!!).

Petersong1968 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article Mirza Faizan

Amazing!!!, Its amazing that administrators of wikipedia take decisions on assumptions for which they themselves are NOT sure!! Just because it "SOUNDS LIKES" something, they are taking decisions to keep or delete an article...lol!! Dude, this single sentence itself is the notability of this guy, who is doing something for the first time in a country and for global aerospace industry. Have a look at these global news: . Moreover, a businessman contribution to global economy itself is his notability, otherwise tell me what is the notability of Bill Gates without mentioning Microsoft?? It appears that you guys are acting under biased judgement and personal prejudice while taking decision to keep or delete an article and you people don't have an answer to my questions. This is the reason why Mr. Tnxman307 has no reply and now are acting on his behalf. However, the world knows Wikipedia is an international community and belongs to everyone, we will keep in posting articles. Good Luck!!

References

Sameer1022 (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense!! The deleted "articles" (neither of which I deleted, by the way) were deleted because they were shameless advertisements for Faizan; indeed one of them was created by an account named User:Faizan Avembsys (i.e., the name of his company). Are you Faizan, or merely one of his hirelings? Be warned that we will continue to delete advertisements whenever they appear. If the man is honestly notable, why not provide information about him (not bafflegab about alleged shortages in the industry) to our folks at the "Request for Articles" pages. (The only staffing shortage in engineering is of honest employers willing to pay competent engineers, especially those over 30 years old, a decent wage and benefits [decent by Western standards].) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for replying (both here and on my talk page). Sorry that you were dragged into this for an article you didn't delete. TNXMan 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Steampunk Tree House and COI

Hi Mike, I see that you reverted an addition to Steampunk on the grounds of COI. Would you have any objection to me re-adding this / re-adding this if I add some other non-COI refs? It clearly is COI (assuming of course that the editor name is real), but at the same time, this group did get a steam engine running in the middle of a desert and also the steampunk tree house is fairly well-known on the scene. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be delighted! Thanks for volunteering. Of course we need better sourcing than the subjects' own websites. (But then, you already know that.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Imam hakim

There was plenty of context in this article to identify the subject, such as the link to muhaddith and the dates. Please restore the article allow the wiki process to be used to improve it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no need for "improvement", since "Imam Hakim" was another name for Hakim al-Nishaburi. However, at your suggestion (thanks) I restored the deleted name and converted it to a redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

King Alfred Plan

The page talk:King Alfred Plan was edited today, for the first time since 2008. Since you're the admin who protected the article, I wanted to make sure you know in case it isn't on your watchlist or it got bumped down by other things. I've no opinions on the content of the edit or whether it is the sort you were trying to keep out. —Soap— 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Soulidium

Hi there, I saw that you blocked the User mentioned above and deleted one of his uploads I tagged at WP:PUF, I was wondering about the rest of his uploads that were tagged, mostly found at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 12, should they be deleted immediatley as well?--Shadowed Soul 23:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arab League

User Arab League wants to change his username but does not know and wants you to help him About Changing Name Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Orangemike, can you explain to me the reasoning behind blocking a user who had been editing for over 4 years and made over 5000 edits without warning? I must be missing something. –xeno^talk 16:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought under our standards for usernames this one was just plain not acceptable, any more than a username like User:AFL-CIO or User:Apple Inc.; it's not like I was happy about having to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • For established users (that may have registered when such rules did not exist), there are other options than jumping straight to a block (especially one that suggests they register a new username), such as requesting they request a name change, or filing an RFC/N. –xeno^talk 16:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll definitely keep that in mind for the future. By the way, thanks for unblocking AL. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I can understand your sentiment concerning Eggs Aldo (Alter ego of...?). Peppered with quaint turns of phrase and idioms, the language has the floral verbosity of Indian English - with which I am very familiar - but I may be mistaking it for a West Indian variety with which I am not familiar. The article is spiced with more than a touch of COI, but the main ingredients, notability and sources, are absent. Totally tasteless. --Kudpung (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JustNeem deletion

Could you please tell me what is expected to make a new article acceptable? I'm very new at this and thought I was following all of the posted guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martynreynes (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC) — Martynreynes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Read WP:CORP. There is nothing to indicate this company is notable in any way; and the article reads like you work for them. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I was editing Azadirachta indica and noticed that an Indian company was listed (Margo soap) and thought it might be helpful to add an American company as well. I do not work for JustNeem, I just like their soap.

Martynreynes (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That falls under the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I've nominated Margo (soap) for deletion as non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. If it comes off as a sales pitch, I apologize. I guess I'm just not understanding the concept as well as you - I was just trying to share information.

Martynreynes (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lawrencewarwick

I have posted at COIN. Racepacket (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Texasmusicgirl block

It appears that this user that you blocked has created a new user (User:Rocknrollforever) to avoid your block. Rocknrollforever admits to being the same publicist in their latest edit of George Ducas (singer) diff --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for playing Wikipedia Editor Groupmind this evening! Y'all can both go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Texasmusicgirl now. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Quack

User:Texasmusicgirl is evading her block with the account User:Rocknrollforever. If it's not her, it's most definitely a meatpuppet as their first and only edit was to immediately nominate the George Ducas (singer) article for speedy deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ponyo and I, on the other hand, have absolutely no off-site communication. ^_^ --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha! That's what I get for hitting 'new section' to edit, I completely missed the post above. Nice mind-melding with you Uncle Milty! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for playing Wikipedia Editor Groupmind this evening! Y'all can both go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Texasmusicgirl now. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My talk and user pages

Thanks for catching that, I wonder who the editor was I upset. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly weren't the only one. Tag 'em, bag 'em and forget 'em. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good policy, I saw that the editor hit other pages. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NASDAQ

I am not saying that it does convey notability, just that it is a claim to significance, a lower standard than notibility.VERTott 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW this is briefly discussed at WP:LISTED. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my expatriated friend. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

zChocolat (ZChocolat)

Hi there! I am new to Wikipedia and was drafting an article about a company I have ordered from in the past that had no Wikipedia entries yet. Per the instructions, I created it under my user page and asked to have it reviewed. I took a break from this project to try and find some references and then returned to find it had been moved out of the user space. Now it shows up on a Google search of the company's name, even though it has all these Wikipedia alarms on it regarding notability, tone, etc.

I see in the history that you have been kind enough to work on it. Can you help me understand how/why you moved it to the articlespace and what that actually means? I thought that, as long as it was under my User Page it was a work in progress that only I could edit, but I guess I was wrong. Second, how can I change the title? The name of the company is actually zChocolat.com (little z and add the .com), so I'd like to fix that.

Also, I have some more information and can easily tone down what some see as the promotional tone. I did model it after pages for similar companies (Scharffen Berger, Godiva, Lindt, etc.). Can I go ahead and keep editing the content?

Thanks! YoDroz (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:YoDroz.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Luxury Stranger

I was browsing random articles and found Luxury Stranger. I've noticed you've reverted recent COI edits, but am wondering: is the band even notable? It looks like it could be put up for AFD, but I'm unsure because of the source from BBC. -WarthogDemon 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Schock.cc

Could you review the above block. I have read their unblock request, and it seems on the up-and-up. Their explanation for how their username matches their personal website seems OK to me, and I don't see this as a huge deal, in light of the explanation. Is there any objection you have towards unblocking? --Jayron32 04:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Hi Orangemike, I have requested a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger, in case you wanted to comment there. OCNative (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've commented there. TNXMan 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Chandler Davis

Hi OrangeMike! Please provide a source for the statement that Davis describes himself as a former member of the Communist Party of the USA. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'd thought it was pretty much common knowledge by now; he was your classic red-diaper baby. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Caitlin Rose

If you delete an artist's article, it's probably good to delete their albums too. Dead Flowers EP and Own Side Now are both A9 now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Frances Jacson

Thanks for your input to this new page. For technical reasons (edit overlaps), please could you hold off for a couple of hours? I'm transcribing (and of course rephrasing) information from the ODNB article on her. I'll then look for further sources. Blessings. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"States Rights": Code words edit

OrangeMike,

In regards to the “code word” edits. I have performed a search and have found no politicians that used racial "code words" during the last presidential election. There are however, talk show hosts, TV and newspaper articles suggesting that race was an issue. There are also groups like the “Birthers” to the “Black Panthers” that proclaim racism. But there were no politicians: like the "code words" examples present. My edits are factual and are in no-way an attempt to hide an ugly American past. I think the article is quite good and needs to be understood in the context of the correct era.

It’s wrong to ask me to find examples for another user (Malik). Malik has and can present his own evidence. Matthew.zellmer (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike,

22 Nov 2010 Malik added an example of "states rights" used as a code word for segregation, but the example article; http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-perry_19tex.ART0.State.Edition1.4b7d22a.html, says the Gov. Rick Perry was very vocal against slavery and made it clear (in the article) that he is against segregation. I don’t understand Malik, he provided an article that DISPROVES code words being used today.

Matthew.zellmer (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike, Thanks for adjusting my changes; I will endeavor provide proper sentence structure and grammar in the future. Matthew.Zellmer 19:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Yugioh Decks

You missed the page. --intelati^talk 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for input on List Article

Hello,

I would like your input on the List of Lew Carpenter cites at Talk:List of Lew Carpenter cites. It is attached to the article Lew Carpenter, which is a work in progress. I would appreciate your input to properly cite the information and where. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For my first "Sports" related article, I am learning some things the hard way ... Such is life. Thank you for your blunt honesty. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Triune Hypothesis

Thanks, Mike. I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed discovering The Truth. I'm a convert now! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Melanie Joy

Hi Mike, can you delete this again and possibly with a spoonfull of salt. Also it's not the same creator so I suspect a sock.

• 10:30, 20 November 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "Melanie Joy" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
• 10:18, 20 November 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "Melanie Joy" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

--Kudpung (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wisconsin witch hunt

Good morning-I came across a new article Wisconsin witch hunt. It was an article about someone who is involved in Wicca and wanted to be a chaplain involving the Wisconsin prison system. You may find this interesting-Thanks-RFD (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Julian Jakobi

Would you please restore this article I was working on. It is not eligble for A7 as it clearly asserts notability - it states Julian Jakobi was Ayrton Senna's manager. It has already been speedy deleted when I was working on it by a different admin and restored, please could you now restore the article so I can continute working on it? Thanks.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored and moved to User:Pontificalibus/Julian Jakobi, so go right ahead, but make your case. Being the manager of a famous person (whoever Yarton Senna is) doesn't make you famous; we don't have articles on John Lennon's doorman or Tony Blair's barber. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, a "barber" or "doorman" clearly doesn't have as much influence over someone's success as their manager. Anyway that essay you cite refers to arguments occuring in AfD, which is where you should have taken this article if you were unhappy about the subject's notability, as it's clearly ineligible under A7 which requires only some indication of importance. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider "the manager of X" to be an indication of importance. At any rate, it's restored; good luck with that. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)