User talk:Orangemike

TUSC token fa255ad995d61b015320a1a04245a250

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Reply at my Talk page

I've replied to your templated comment at my Talk page -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(@ Orange Mike) Hi Orange Mike. Avanu re-added the content to the article talk page prior to my commenting at Chaser's talk page. Since you are an uninvolved editor, I wondered if you might take the step to remove it. Gacurr (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And Chaser re-removed it. Seems that none of you are actually big on communicating the specific details of the actual problem here, despite my efforts to ask you to open up. I realize that a joke isn't strictly on-topic for a Talk page, but my goodness, all the ire for a silly thing such as this baffles me. Do we ever stop to laugh at ourselves or at anything here in Wikipedia or must it always be the most strict seriousness? -- Avanu (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a time long ago when I heard Tony say, "Why are you wasting time on this?" I learned something very important from that. Gacurr (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the pointed and implied-agenda-pushing comments we sometimes see in Talk pages, I would hope it isn't a waste of time to release the tension and laugh once in a while and remember that other editors are people too, not just editing robots. -- Avanu (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, read WP:FORUM, read the top of the talk page. This is not a social club. You are free to laugh in your own space. Placing inappropriate content on article talk page is against the rules. You know this. Yet you insist on being disruptive and re-adding the content anyway. Tony's advice is gold. We should not be wasting time on this. Gacurr (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lighten up. My goodness, its been removed and you're still quoting policy and acting like a robot. -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your clarification and assistance on Cutter Aviation deletion

Thank you for providing me direct links to the policies on conflict of interest at Wikipedia and how it applied to the deletion of the article for Cutter Aviation. I now agree with the speedy deletion on these grounds and appreciate your assistance to educate me as I make future contributions to Wikipedia. I appreciate your ongoing efforts to maintain quality standards on Wikipedia. --Avolareaz (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hello Orange Mike, I noticed your remark about your 30th wedding anniversary and wanted to offer my warm regards. My wife and I will celebrate the same event on September 6. I hope that the two of you have a wonderful day, and a wonderful future together. Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My congratulations also to your wife and yourself on your 30th wedding anniversary!RFD (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Message about external links

I received this message below but don't understand how to address it:

"As per Wikipedia's policy on external links, I don't think adding links to search results pages on DigitalNC.org is recommended. I've removed this link from the Davidson College page, but it looks like you've added such links to many pages on Wikipedia. Npdoty (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)"

I have not violated any policies by inserting internal links for DigitalNC.org. I do not want to risk either myself or the organization wrongfully being blocked from Wikipedia.Emjohns (talk)Emjohns

1. Your phrasing (e.g., "View Davidson College student yearbooks on DigitalNC.org") is exactly the kind of phrasing used by spammers, with a promotional tone.

2. You seem to be doing nothing in Wikipedia except adding links to DigitalNC, which suggests that you are trying to raise the online profile of that website.

3. The tone of some of your talkpage remarks seems strongly to suggest that you work for DigitalNC in some capacity, and thus have a conflict of interest in doing these edits.

4. Those are external links, not internal links; internal links are bluelinks referring the reader to other articles and pages within Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Karl 334

I think you blocked Karl 334 (talk · contribs) by mistake. Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Edw987/Ciaccio Transform

This is about a mathematical transform we created that is now in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I am writing about it as the one who understands it. Supposing you prefer that we wait and see if it eventually gets written up by someone not associated with our group to prevent conflict of interest. If so can you delete said pages in my workspace and the images Spec0ec.jpg and Spec1ec.jpg. Thank you kindly. Edw987 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done so at your request; but I hope this does not discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia in other ways. Me, I couldn't tell an infinitely-differential Riemannian manifold from an exhaust manifold; we need subject-matter specialists like you here! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Deletion of OrangeMike Page under ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)

Unless you can provide me proof within one day that you have the rights to the content in question. Note that this is more time and warning than you gave me bucko. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? Precisely what content is a copyright violation, and where is it copied from? The two articles which you were notified of as being copyright violations included the source where the copyrighted text could be found. If you have a genuine copyright violation, you need to give the source - it is your job to prove the violation, not OrangeMike's to disprove it. For legal reasons, copyright material isn't allowed on Wikipedia, which is why those 2 articles were deleted. Any copyright violation can be deleted immediately by an admin with no warning for this reason. As I am on my mobile, I am not logged I'm as my main account which has admin rights, so I can't see your deleted contributions, but if an article you had created was deleted as a copyright violation and you weren't notified, then apologies on behalf of OrangeMike - we're all human, and sometimes things get forgotten! Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess UrbanTerrorist is referring to deleted Laywers in Hell? Which was clear G12 deletion candidate, text identical to this. There's nothing G12-able about Orangemike's user page so any threats to attempt to get it deleted are idle. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct, there isn't. I was trying to make a point. There wasn't any copyright infringing material on the page that OrangeMike so carelessly deleted. I had the requisite permissions from all of the copyright owners to use the content I used. In fact if you do a whois on the website of Janet Morris you will notice that the website is in my name (Wayne Borean). OrangeMike did not perform his duties according to the rules. I spent a fair bit of time working on that page, and due to his carelessness my time has now been wasted. If he had followed through the way he is supposed to, he would have found that I had the permissions. Under the circumstances the proper response by OrangeMike would be for him to replace the content in question. If he does not do so, I will file a complaint. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have permissions, then follow the procedure to prove that you have them before adding them to an article (especially when we're talking about a book about lawyers). It wouldn't matter in any case, since (as usual) the language was totally non-encyclopedic, being the kind of promotional copy intended to sell a book. You should know better by now. --13:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been an editor on Wikipedia for years, and I was not aware of this set of rules that you are talking about. Deleting a page without pointing to the relevant rule first so that the editor can fix the problem is an inefficient use of resources.

The entire Wikipedia rule structure is inefficient. Several times in the last six months I've wasted huge chunks of time trying to determine what the rules are, or at least where to find them. This is something that needs to be addressed. For example a Bot had earlier popped up on the page, and wrote this:

Lawyers In Hell

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lawyers In Hell, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.kerlak.com/lawyerhell.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of working through the information that CorenSearchBot supplied, when the page disappeared without warning. It is rather difficult to fix problems with a page when the page no longer exists. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Wikipedia is under no obligation (nor is it technically able) to deduce copyright ownership of material cut-and-pasted from external websites. If you own the content, you may submit proof via OTRS. Wikipedia is obligated to delete apparent copyright violations, and OrangeMike did indeed do his duty according to the rules. Please do not attack other editors or disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the ironies here is that Wayne/Urban is (like myself) a member of science fiction fandom, a community which is usually under attack from "mundanes" on one pretext or another. On other topics, he and I work together much better. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First pass. I got the page up, family matters intervened (it's a miracle I'm not in jail right now for second degree murder). So I got back to it later than intended to re-write the page to make it more encyclopedic. But I've lost time, the relatives have caused problems, another fan feud is costing me time as well, I have two articles due by Friday, and an elderly relative who is dying, and won't admit it. So yes, I'm not my usual bright and cheerful self, and everyone else gets to live with the fall out. Oh, and my beagle puppy got loose, and was hit by a car this morning, and didn't survive, so pardon me while I be a total bastard for a week or so. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Brobins4

Hi Mike, I have a question for you. I've been dealing with User:Brobins4 for a couple of days on one article, I would like you to look at his edits and then his talk page to see if I'm handling this correctly. He is claiming to be person in article. Thanks Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Shannon Letandre

I added a G7 speedy deletion tag to this article. You removed it stating that because it was edited by six editors it did not meet the criteria. This diff shows that since the last edit by the original author there has been no substantial content added aside from references. The requirement for G7 states that "the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author." Per this, I believe it qualifies for G7. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of User talk:Cranialsodomy

Yeah, perhaps, given that they have been active for 6 years before you blocked them, something like WP:RFCUN may have been more appropriate. Presumably, hundreds of editors before you have seen the username and not raised any objection, given the length of time it has been around, it may have been best to handle this with something smaller than the biggest gun in the arsenal. If I agree to start the thread at WP:RFCUN and see where it goes, will you concede to allow me to unblock? --Jayron32 03:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot revert

You have an issue with this? Revert of a bot? A bot run that I requested with categories that I specified? Really? For all intents and purposes I consider this a self-revert. Fyi Wikiproject members are given a great deal of discretion when it comes to tagging articles for their project. Lionel (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Incidentally a wikiproject banner is not a "classification." It is merely a tool for tracking articles for a wikiproject--it doesn't add anything to an article--it isn't political. Banners and categories are completely different. Lionel (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just seeking to understand your decision, which had no edit summary to explain it. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please pardon the tone. Your inquiries are reasonable and even welcome. The more publicity WPRight gets the better. The banner has nothing do do with article content and classification and everything to do with internal tracking of the wikiproject. This banner turns on a switch at WPRight and from now on every edit, RfC, move request, RecentChanges, will display in realtime on our project page where we have 30 members. With over 2400 articles this can be expensive. TPC is not an important article to the project, so I reverted the bot.Lionel (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jerome Corsi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Also, libel is never permitted on Wikipedia. Thank you. Lunixer (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I restored, not removed, content; said content was non-libellous wording fully sourced to cited sources. 2. Truth is an absolute defense against accusations of libel. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

AN email thread

Hi OM, I replied to your initial comment on the email issue at AN with something that, in retrospect, might have appeared to you to have been unduly flippant ("Jail? <g>")

I apologise for this as I did and do understand that yours is a genuine concern. It was just that, as has since been said by others, it probably does not matter in Real Life. I would certainly let WMF know about it but wouldn't worry unduly about any real life repercussions. As someone who has faced a fair amount of legal threats in my life, often regarding what would be classed here as BLP issues, you are so far in the clear that it is unbelievable anyone would make any sort of legal threat. Unless, of course, they are full of themselves and make such threats for a living. Put simply:

• if your respond at all then don't do so using your primary email address
• report to WMF for logging purposes
• do not fret. You are not the one who has a "fan club" of several thousand Indian caste warriors trying to locate him in order to do some possibly life-threatening damage. That should put it into perspective, I hope!

Again, my apologies for the flippancy and, please, sleep the sleep of a just person. You have nothing to fear in this instance, even if you were in fact the person who deleted the article. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No big; but he already has my home/primary e-mail address: that's the one he sent the threat to. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

/* Inside Croydon */

Hello Mike. Last month you deleted an edit on a biog because it only referenced unreliable sources. This material has reappeared in an amended form; the sources are little different, just as unreliable or inaccurate and that is now a matter of a legal dispute. A comparitive read of the accounts on the Barwell and Croydon blogs suggests that the account as listed here is wide of the mark; the local newspaper report is unsourced (apart from lifting a quote from Barwell's blog) and inaccurate.

It appears that Aristottie may well be another name for a previous malicious editor - Lolitaleveaux - who was eventually blocked by an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.37.215 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me a link so I know what you're talking about? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A link to what?

Moving on... replacing one "unreliable source" with another "unreliable source", and one which is subject to a legal complaint at present, does not help the problem with this. Question: is the Barwell case of such significance in the overall account of the career? I'd suggest not. If it needs to be included, then some context of what Inside Croydon is about is necessary.

It is interesting that, if you read Barwell's (sourced) own blog, he does admit that he has hired the councillors mentioned in Downes's report, and that they are paid from public funds. Downes's apology was not on this point at all. Hence the suspicion that maybe whoever instigated this edit may have a personal ax to grind.

If you're going to include it, it would be good to have it right 86.164.51.239 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about the Steven Downes article! Well, if any of this is true, than somebody should be providing actual reliable sources (i.e., not Downes' own blog or other people's blogs) such as newspaper articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Well if any of this is true..."? If you do not know it to be true, then surely you are not able to publish it unless or until you have it confirmed.

You raise an interesting point: how is a newspaper article (which, as you have been informed more than once, is the subject of legal action as being inaccurate, partial and malicious) any more "reliable" as a source? By its very nature, it is a "second-hand" or hearsay version, unlike direct testimony from individuals, in this case by way of their blogs. Memoirs and diaries are routinely used in biographical accounts: surely a blog is simply the 21st century version of that?

Your application of this policy is, in any case, inconsistent. You say that it should not link to "other people's blogs". Yet you allow the link to Barwell's own blog. How does this meet your test of a "reliable source"?

109.145.199.56 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've not been informed of anything; I've had some anonymous allegations in posts such as your that there is some nebulous "legal action" going on. As to the blog issue: Barwell's blog is a source for what he said in it, not for anything else. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a self-serving argument if ever there was one.

How do I escalate a complaint here, to contact directly someone who supervises what you do? 109.145.197.247 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!

orangemike, big fan. Thanks for your recent contribution to the University at Buffalo...with the official title and name. Buffalofan4255 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

It's a question of sound sourcing. Now if you could just clean up the rah-rah boosterish tone of the article as a whole.... --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US State Legislatures

It was recently suggested that WikiProject US State Legislatures might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kool-Aid

Thanks for taking care of this--Phagopsych (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nestor Papoutsis

Hello, why did You delete the above mentioned article? Because it was once deleted, due to missing proof, that does not mean that it should be deleted over and over again, while also proofing links (IMDB) were attached. So in my oppinion this deletion was not correct. --YUGO (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. There is still no evidence that this person ever played ball at the professional level. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

ok lets dont talk about the bball-thing over and over again, the article clearly was associated with the producing career, as the person was labeled as an creative producer, besides imbd there was also a link of crew-united.com, this is reliable source for european film projects. So deleting an article, because of older discussion was in this case not correct, please check again those links: producer proof and physicians proof. Please check again. --YUGO (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The first link shows that somebody with the name N. Papoutsis has published two, count them two, academic papers; so what? Could be Narkissa or Nephthys or Nikostratos Papoutsis. The second link shows that somebody of this name was a producer for one, count them one, music video. So what? Neither of these even remotely amounts to any kind of claim of notability whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Cynthia Townley

Orange Mike, You sent me an email and deleted a page my daughter wrote about me on Wikipedia. I am a writer of mystery-crime novels. I didn't personally write the Wikipedia page, my daughter did no my computer. I am somewhat confused. I checked you on Wikipedia and it seems your page is an autobiography, whereas mine was not. It was no different than a page by Lisa Gardner, Tess Garritsen, or any other American author. Please explain further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia Townley (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Did you maybe mean to address this to User:UKexpat???? Under what account was the deleted article you're talking about written? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)\

No, wasn't me, I don't have that power. As far as I can tell, there has never been a Cynthia Townley article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

But there is User:Cynthia Townley/Cynthia Townley. – ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Self Aggrandaziton

I'm sorry, I didn't know, won't happen again.

Supreme Overlord 17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chance.purvis (talk • contribs)

Orange Mike - You deleted text in the Williamsburg, VA wiki because I am affiliated with WYDaily. But, WYDaily is in fact the dominant newspaper in the community - how do I get Wikipedia to post the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGDATTYD (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggest changes on the talk page of the article, providing evidence from reliable third parties to back up your assertions, and disclose your own conflict of interest when you do so. (And I couldn't tell from the weblink you tried to insert whether WYD even exists as an actual hard-copy newspaper. )--Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

I am not trying to steal information, but what time zone do you live in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Since 6.18.2011 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Central. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since June 18, 2011. (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since June 18, 2011. (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

HEY MIKE. IM NEW HERE. ACTUALLY CREATED PAGE TO AD ON TO A SINGERS PAGE. HER NAME IS SONI GUZMAN KNOWN AS SONI (1ST NAME), AN ACTUAL PERSON. WHEN I WENT TO THE PAGE THE ONE I SEEN A YEAR AGO WAS DELETED & MENTIONED YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THE DELETION. SO, HERE I AM. CURIOUS AS TO THERE BEING A WAY TO GET THAT PAGE BACK UP. IT SEEMS YOU ARE A WIKI PRO. NEED YOUR HELP ON THIS ONE. OTHER ARTISTS WIKI PAGES MENTION HER ON THERE DISCOGRAPHY BUT THE LINK DOESNT WORK OR DOESNT EXSIST. YOU CAN SEE HER INFO BY TYPING IN HER NAME IN I-TUNES WITH HER HIT "HERE TO STAY". WWW.SONIONLINE.COM , WWW.MYSPACE.COM/SONI1 , WWW.TWITTER.COM/THEREALSONI , WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/SONESTARMUSIC SHE IS LEGENDARY DJ TONY TOUCH'S ARTIST. VERY NEW TO THIS. THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY UNTIL I REALIZED THE PAGE WAS DELETED. HELP

States rights -- direct election of senators

My unseen comment on the page was just to alert other editors, before they possibly consider deleting the unsourced section about direct election of senators, that it's probably right that the direct election switch undermined states rights. That is, I think references exist, good ones, and when I come across them, I'll add them, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

V-pop

Regardless of whether we can salvage that "article," I am forever scarred by things like this.[1]. How this band is a "plagiarist" of anything but bad taste is unclear.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just want to say that despite that link I really admire your efforts to salvage that article in the face of enthusiasts who really ought to spend more time learning languages and less studying discographies. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Its fascinating pop-culture stuff to the extent I can understand it. I think the "plagiarist" label is a claim that HKT is stealing from K-pop (Korean pop) styles. There's also a number of articles and videos which use the phrase "Thảm họa V-pop", "Disaster V-Pop," to describe how awful some of it is.[2][3]. Any true fans of it are surely not going to be accomplished wiki editors.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

wiknic?

Are you planning on going to this? Protonk (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Chicago's a long walk away, and I work on Saturday afternoons anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the train for me! I'll see you around then. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

$44 round-trip on Amtrak, and losing hours of work in the bargain. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. Wasn't trying to sell you on the idea. :) Protonk (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my wife said, "Sure; go ahead." She's gonna work the afternoon shift for me, I'm taking the Amtrak, and I'll see youse guys there! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

....?

Why did you delete User:Tgwti/Summerboy (Album)? I didn't publish it because it didn't have sources and wasn't ready for publication. Tgwti (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we don't accept articles about recordings by non-notable artists. That is category A9 of speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But the article wasn't moved to a main page because it wasn't DONE. And he is notable. Need some links?

http://www.reverbnation.com/LowellBekker He is #1 in dallas on the reverbnation He's also been played on several music stations: http://www.y100.com/new2/artists/i/288250?psid=391580 http://www.talkradio1059.com/new2/artists/i/288250 http://www.mixradioonline.com/new2/artists/i/288250?psid=391580 (you can google the rest) And he's been mentioned on many blogs and videos, though I'm not going to link those here, since I know how Wikipedia HATES not notable websites ;) Tgwti (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As you've already been told, your project doesn't come remotely close to meeting WP:BAND notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles about musicians must be created first (not articles about their records), and must meet our standards for notability for musicians; you've never done that. (And none of the links you list above meets those standards, by the way.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. But the last 3 links fit in the criterias fit. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." YES! His songs are being played nationally because of some distribution company or something. That's why I linked radio stations. I can link so many more for the article, but only wanted to show you just a few so you can get the idea. You CANNOT tell me that is not in the list of criterias. Tgwti (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"His songs are being played nationally because of some distribution company or something"???? That's mere speculation on your part, neither solid nor sourced, and certainly not verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

LeafRed66

Dear OrangeMike - thank you for the bite the neebies link. It was very helpful;) I will turn a fresh page and not look back, thanks to you and Atama - much appreciated --LeafRed66 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it helped. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Steven Downes

I'm not an admin, but SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected it that time. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article does not cite any references or sources.

I think that you are the person to talk to about this. We've just fixed the Lawyers in Hell page, and got it back up, and one of the bots hit us with the above notice. Now this is a book, and it is it's own reference, which I will add later, but I got curious. So I started poking around different pages. The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume One, 1929–1964 has the same label. Curiously the The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume Two does not. Anne of Green Gables does not have it, nor does Dangerous Visions. Curiously Dangerous Visions lists an ISBN, but the ISBN is not totally correct, as a Canadian Publisher I know about the ISBN system, and that number is only applicable to the paper version of the book, the Ebook version which I have a copy of has a different ISBN, as would an audiobook version (but that is a different issue). Right now my concern is what do we do about books and citing references and sources. I'm of the opinion that books should be included in Wikipedia. However I'm a bit uncomfortable of the logic of using a circular citation (the article citing the book the article is about). From one point of view it is legitimate though. Citing the publishers site, and booksellers sites is also circular. We could cite reviews, but with genre publications, reviews tend to be written by friends. So, since you are a fan, what would you suggest? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The publishers' or dealers' websites are inappropriate, since it's ads for the book, and as notoriously unreliable and promotional as cover blurbs. Articles should be sourced to reviews and criticism from reliable sources; and bluntly, a new book like that is unlikely to have garnered much yet. See WP:BOOK for the standards it should be meeting if you don't want a rapid deletion. If there aren't such reviews and criticisms published, again speaking bluntly, it's likely to be headed for the bit-bin, as not yet notable (see WP:UPANDCOMING. As to ISBNs: I prefer the original publication ISBN, if any; and if not, the current hardcover iteration thereof if in print, or the oldest hardcover iteration with an ISBN if not. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

By those standards Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was not notable.

As to ISBN, all paper copies will have the same ISBN if from the same publisher. If the publisher changes, the ISBN will change. If the book is released under multiple formats (print, audio, ebook) it would have three ISBN, one for each format, and in that case the Wikipedia entry should list each ISBN. I also do the futurist gig, and my prediction is that brick and mortar book stores will soon be dead, as book purchasing shifts away from hard copies to ebooks. This will also kill most of the publishers, but will mean more money in the pockets of the writers, which is a positive effect from my point of view. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Meetup image

Be advised that File:Chicago Meetup 4 - orangemike.jpg is up at commons and at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 4 page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Recreating article on Jaiprakash Gaur

Hi Orangemike, I was going to create a article on Jaiprakash Gaur, and it says a article with same name was deleted by you previously. Is there a way I can see the previous contents, just to be sure I am not putting the same content. - abhi (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created a stub, based in part on the old article and in part on a newer, more solid reference. Please improve it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas James Ball lockdown

Hi Orangemike, I was interested in fostering a positive discussion regarding Thomas James Ball in relation to the deletion of his article from wikipedia but I noticed that when I tried that you reverted the edit and locked the talk page down. What's the best way to kick off a delete appeal under these circumstances? Some new information has come to light concerning TJB that lends credence to his being a men's rights activist at the New Hampshire state level so technically his notoriety could be established through this path. I know the original article was highly editorial and agendized and I'd like to fix that. I've argued in numerous online forums that wikipedia was right to delete this article but if there's no path to review information and change things based on new information it seems like the only path to get the article re-included is to create an article as a user for draft and request peer review once it is complete. Is this the correct path? Is trying to talk about an article that is deleted on it's talk page pointless? I really don't want to waste more of the admin's time on semantics and citations so I've decided to try and become the filter through which people might see just how difficult it actually is to write a valid article. I know you're busy but I was hoping you might be able to offer some advice. Incidentally, I agree with the original reasons for deleting the article but I do think it could have been something other than a coatrack. Numbertwopencil (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

men's rights activist at the New Hampshire state level is not even remotely a claim of notability; there's really not a men's-rights activist in most states who can meet our standards for notability, just as is true for most activists in most causes in most places: most of them may be quoted for a token paragraph or two in articles, when the press needs a quote about a news item in their area of activism, but that does not constitute substantial coverage of them as subjects. If you really think a solid new article can be crafted, then "the only path to get the article re-included is to create an article as a user for draft and request peer review once it is complete." Yes, this is the correct path. There is no talk page for deleted articles; such pages are automatically deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Orangemike. Like yourself, I'm somewhat of a deletionist. I think perhaps trying to create a master headed article directly for Thomas James Ball is a lofty ideal outside the scope of reality, I also think that perhaps others' efforts to get him included in the list of self-immolating suicides might be a bit of a reach... I've suggested elsewhere that perhaps that within the scope of the organizations that he worked with that an article about their organization (with a section on him if his loss significantly affects that organization) might be a better choice. At any rate, I hope to be able to prove ultimately either for or against the possibility of an article. I'm rational enough to understand wikipedia's reasoning behind the deletion and I hope that my user draft shows people the proper path to take when creating an article. Thanks for your response. Numbertwopencil (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike, I am very sorry if anyone is annoying you over TJB because of anything I've said about how wikipedia should work. Numbertwopencil (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If Thomas Ball fails to meet your standards of notability then how come this List of Popotan characters made the cut? There is nothing notable about whatever Popotan is supposed to be aside from spawning that stupid carameldansen meme, and that doesn't even "cite" (for lack of a better word) Popotan. Don't tell me the content of that article is more notable than a real person who publically immolated himself in a first-world country. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may, 208.106.104.40 (for brevity's sake, let's call you IP for now); an encyclopedia is not meant to be a political column in a newspaper. All subjects are given importance based on their notability. Popotan, the anime you raised, appears to be highly notable with a large viewership and many reliable sources. There are also very-detailed articles on thermodynamics, the life of Vlad the Impaler, and the 9/11 bombings - all from vastly different fields, but all notable within their fields. As I've said many times, is Mr. Ball's death tragic? Yes. Should anybody have to be pushed to those limits? No. But does his death make him notable? Unfortunately, as both community consensus and policy dictate, no. It may seem a bit cold, but these are the guidelines.

I'll also throw in a commendation for Numbertwopencil - your efforts are greatly appreciated. If you can piece together something comprehensible, non-editorialized and well-sourced, maybe we can revisit the article.

Sorry for invading your talk page, Orangemike. Cheers all, m.o.p 05:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Jim Risch

Mine could've been better, but I don't really agree with the lead that was there. The general consensus for a lead, especially the higher-quality articles at WP:GA and WP:FA, briefly address all major aspects of the subject's life. This is in line with WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A short, concise biography is expected, not just a list of two jobs.

I think Risch's serving 20 years in the Idaho Senate is absolutely an important part of his biography, for example. Even though a state senator is less notable than a U.S. Senator, state legislators are considered notable. That means he could have an entire article just for having been there, and the lead doesn't even mention it. If he became U.S. Vice President you wouldn't subsequently remove his U.S. Senate service from the lead. The fact that he was Senate President pro tempore for six years is particularly notable, as it's a major state position.

Other factors like his birthplace/school are less important, but a "concise version of the article" is very likely to include such a thing. Compare your lead to the Washington Post's extremely brief biography (to pick an example) [4] which includes more details than even mine did. I think there are ways to keep the lead short without omitting basic biographical details. The lead isn't meant to be a two-sentence affair, and no article would pass GA nomination with the current lead. —Designate (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

?

User:Since 10.28.2010 here, what templates are you talking about? I never put any templates anywhere. Please post a talkback on my talk page. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to your (reasonable) query, "But other users could just copy and paste the templates regardless. Or is that a violation against Wikipedia?" and explaining that while you are correct, it can be done, such misbehavior would have consequences. I was not accusing you of anything of the sort! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjparchitects

Hi there. Did you warn this editor before blocking him indefinitely? Which of his 17 edits was so bad? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He/she was adding a series of edits and spamlinks, all calculated to glorify a short list of architects apparently affiliated with the firm MJP Architects. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently? Not quite sure how you have deduced that. I agree that normally just a name like that would be a giveaway. But in this case, it doesn't lokk quite so clear cut. The refs all looked very well formatted too, not much like your average spammer. You seem to have pounced rather quickly on this one. Not quite sure how you would prove your case. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. In the interest of not being bitey, I've switched to a softerblock on User:Mjparchitects. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems fairer. Thanks for the adjustment. We'll see what happens, if anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)