Hi Mike! I saw that you are an administrator, could you please check this discussion on this [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_August_23#File:Eric_Harris_pointing_to_the_camera.jpeg|Eric Harris picture]]? I think it's all right, could it be closed? Thank you and sorry for bothering you. [[User:Nienk|Nienk]] ([[User talk:Nienk|talk]]) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike! I saw that you are an administrator, could you please check this discussion on this [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_August_23#File:Eric_Harris_pointing_to_the_camera.jpeg|Eric Harris picture]]? I think it's all right, could it be closed? Thank you and sorry for bothering you. [[User:Nienk|Nienk]] ([[User talk:Nienk|talk]]) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
:Excuse me Mike, I asked you something on the discussion page. I find it rather difficult to end this all haha. Sorry again for bothering you. [[User:Nienk|Nienk]] ([[User talk:Nienk|talk]]) 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:48, 24 August 2012
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
This is Orangemike's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
apologies orange mike, but i have no idea about how to use wiki or how it's run. the offensive material has been removed for the page now so i'm very happy. have a wonderful and prosperous 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieldb13 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 January 2012
Hello. You have a new message at Steven (WMF)'s talk page.
Message
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Message
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kenton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Message reply with request and gratitude
Hi Orangemike! Thank you so much! The article is Ven digital currency. There are plenty of sub-texts (aren't there always though...) Just so you know, I don't have any inherent bias against digital currencies e.g. Bitcoin. I don't particularly trust them at this point in time, but as long as there is nothing dishonest or unsourced with what is on Wikipedia about them, I have no issues! (And the last time I looked, the WP Bitcoin page looked okay to me). Please have a look at Ven, and my comments on the talk page?
There is other stuff going on too, e.g. Hub Culture (I think that's the name?), the company that owns Ven, keeps popping up on other WP pages e.g. in the cultural attractions for Berlin, with references to Hub Culture's ranking of Berlin as a happening place. It is hardly notable that Hub Culture considers Berlin a place for adventure and excitement! There are many other genuinely notable sources that also do! There is more, but I'm not totally certain e.g. I think that Ven currency is a pet project of FB's MZ sister Randi.
Anyway, this is the substance of my concern: It is misleading for Ven to be promoted, via WP, as a legitimate mainstream form of monetary transaction (sorry bad grammar), with references to buying million dollar condo's, fine wines, diamonds etc. Other digital currencies e.g. Bitcoin, don't claim that they are appropriate for real estate purchases, in contrast! Take a look at the talk page for Ven, and please let me know if I can provide further information. The thing that bothers me the most is that I keep seeing quotes from the Wikipedia entry on Ven, plastered all over the internet, but can't find corroboration of whether or not Ven is actually listed by Thomson Reuters, and every time I try to research Ven, or its API, or the company founder, I come up with bad websites, no documentation, no validation with anything credible. Thank you again, and if you want me to leave this alone, please tell me, and I will. I just wanted someone to talk to about this, without being indiscrete.
P.S. Congratulations on your HighBeam account! Wow! I am envious, I've always wanted to try it as a legitimate user. (I am certain that you are deserving. No snark intended, okay?) --FeralOink (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Orangemike! If this is not appropriate, what I've said above, or if you feel that no action is necessary, and I should not act further, that is fine. But might you be so kind as to delete or archive all this stuff I wrote out here, as it might seem puzzling or worse to others who read it. I am sorry, and merely asking that you consider my request, to cover this up, as after all, it is YOUR talk page, and my babbling, and so I have no one to blame but myself, and I apologize, okay? Thank you. --FeralOink (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Orangemike! Could you please acknowledge me in some way? Thank you. I apologize if I am being rude. I also apologize if you haven't been logged on or doing Wikipedia things during the past 16 days, or had more pressing concerns, as I understand. If any of those possibilities are in fact the case, please disregard this message, until such time that you have time. Thank you. --FeralOink (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's our hope that by maintaining such lists, it will be easier for editors to identify self-published books. In a discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability talk page, The Blade of the Northern Lights said that you and another editor know vanity publishers very well.[1] If you can provide any assistance with these two lists, it would be greatly appreciated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other Losses. It seems the article has been in an edit war for a while. I came across it from the help desk and thought the war was over. I simply removed the stale POV tag after mentioning why in the talk page and a huge revert battle ensued. I think your edits were reverted over in the process, so you may wish to look at the article again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help desk
Thanks for opening my eyes about the use of capitalisation by typewriter users and non-Anglophones. As a (fairly) young person, the former reason had never occurred to me. I'd like to take the chance, while I'm here, to say that your work and dedication to the project is admirable. It doesn't go unnoticed. Hope you're having a good weekend, Brammers (talk/c) 11:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are all these guys coming from? I close the AFD on Apr 3 and now today all these IPs drop out of the sky to protest. 2 from different parts of Canada and 1 from New Zealand. Someone must have issued a call to arms on some forum somewhere. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we are trying to defend what we love our way of life.. You asked for Press coverage? How about the movie Tron? Anis Chefura has been tricking for years, also on the 20th of May there will be the first ever World Tricking Championships. I ask you to to keep tricking as a page, appoint a member of our society to edit the page and keep it up to date.
For further contact feel free to email me on <redacted> A lot of people are outraged.
What does a movie have to do with press coverage? Who is Anis Chefura and what does that have to do with press coverage of this topic? (Even if she or he is somebody famous, notability is not contagious; Dungeons & Dragons is not notable because Steven Colbert played the game.) We need actual evidence of notability, not assertions that four or five people around the planet "are outraged". --Orange Mike | Talk12:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anis Cheurfa is the stuntman who played "Rinzler" in Tron: Legacy. He doesn't have an article (yet). Hey, I'll be the first to admit that they may have a case as sometimes you do have subjects that turn out to be notable but where notability isn't immediately clear. "Trick/tricking" is a common word and that may make it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in a google news search. However, even if that turns out the case, "appointing a member of their society to edit the page and keep it up to date" is the last thing we should do. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been two versions of that article; the first was deleted by me on 10 November 2010 as unambiguous advertising or promotion; the second on 1 May 2012 by User:DGG as both unambiguous copyright infringement and unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk12:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Mike, I don't see that your response was unequivocally wrong. We have a mindset here that when you see the shady character wandering the store with a sawed-off shotgun, you must wait until he points the gun at someone and demands money before we haul him to jail. Of course, it can't hurt to ask the suspect what is he planning to do with that gun, since we are more or less bulletproof in this scenario, but sometimes a confluence of suspicious factors add up to acting without needing to take that step. bd2412T20:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike- I noticed the article on Lenny White, which is an unreferenced BLP. I did some cleanup, and began to go about adding some references, but found that the first one I happened to choose appears to be where the text in the Wikipedia article might have come from. Copyright violation? I am not sure. I feel better taking that stuff to Admins. so I hope I'm not hassling you if you are busy. One more thing- I have a list of about six articles (I have come across doing such cleanup) which I question notability. Would it be OK to give you their names, or do you know another person who might handle those? I'd appreciate it! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a good jazz man; I fear you would be better off seeing who has edited some of the article on performers who are peers of the six you contemplate, and consulting with them. I did stub the White article, a fat chunk of which seems to have been a cut-and-paste from this. --Orange Mike | Talk00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know...
I used to hate your guts. On the other hand, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders these days.
I came across a discussion where I had some useful testimony that I thought you might appreciate. I hope and trust crises have strengthened you IRL. JJB 15:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The only way crises strengthen me, is when they drive me to prayer. In the next two months I've got a dictator to overthrow (regardless of who wins this Tuesday's primary), three conventions to which I'm a delegate (all out of town), a minor union election [I'm president and acting as secretary of my local], and a major science fiction conference where I'm on four panels, one of which I'm moderating). Busy? Who, me? On the other hand: that two-month span also includes my 31st wedding anniversary, so how could I really complain when she's in my life. --Orange Mike | Talk16:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two thumbs up! as long as we don't get specific about the politics in this forum. Politics are much better when moderated by the auspices of Sam Adams. JJB 16:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm teetotal (yes, that's legal in Milwaukee, even for somebody who lives on Brewers Hill, used to work in the Bottlehouse in Schlitz Park, and does his finances at the Brewery Workers Credit Union), although I'm an admirer of the real Sam Adams. I'm always up for a good craft root beer or ginger beer, though. --Orange Mike | Talk17:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me butting in but I'm pretty sure that tee-totaling in Milwaukee is only legal when coupled with a signed and notarized First Amendment affidavit. And those can be tricky to obtain. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page DJ Mell Starr was deleted and I would like help on the areas of why it was deleted
Hey Orange Mike,
Is there anyway that I can get the info that was deleted back so that I can get help for the corrections that need to be made. I am new at Wikipedia and it is VERY confusing to me. Please help.
???? It's all still there, at DJ Mell Starr. The tone is shamelessly promotional and self-praising; and of course you're the worst possible person to be writing an article like this. --Orange Mike | Talk00:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Next Then??
Since I am in your words "the worst possible person to be writing an article". Can you provide some direction or help as to who can help me edit the article? There is factual material and I do have provided references. I explained I was new and from your tone I drastically need help. Therefore, Can you please suggest someone within Wikipedia who can edit the DJ Mell Starr sandbox for me if you are unable to?
At this point, the best thing to do is simply to post on the talk page of the article (i.e., Talk:DJ Mell Starr, stating what you problems you think remain in the article, and offering suggestions for improvements, additional references that could be incorporated, etc. I'm so old-school, the term "DJ" to me means the person who picks the records and plays them, nothing more; so I'm a horrible person to ask for any but the most technical of improvement suggestions. Look at the history of articles about other musicians in your genre who have influenced you, and post on the talk pages of the active editors of those articles, explaining your problem and asking for help; they will probably be glad to have a look, as long as you don't come across as some ego-tripper who is only here to brag about himself. --Orange Mike | Talk00:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to a softerblock, per your suggestion, and added an explanatory note; but we really cannot tolerate impersonation accounts here, even among newbies. --Orange Mike | Talk23:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This File File:CVAustRibbon.png, does not have proof that the Copyright Holder of the image actually gave permission for the user to use it in WikiPedia articles. Should I put the file up for CSD or should I move it to commons, and then have then Commons:OTRS deal with actually verifying the permission that the user claims to have gotten or should I leave just as it is? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"for use in Wikipedia articles" is not a proper license; deleted it for that reasons. We'd need to have a proper license (allowing re-use, etc.) via OTRS. --Orange Mike | Talk02:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Wheaton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AniMate20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete "Jinx Retaliation.jpg"?
It was really an official film poster (IMDb), also used to illustrate the character on the official website.[2] So please revert your deletion, or just re-upload the picture. --Niemti (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is [3] now okay? If you think it qualifies rather under promotional release criteria you might change it accordingly so it will be fine. --Niemti (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not there "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself", since it is there "solely for illustration"; it does not qualify for any fair-use exemption. --Orange Mike | Talk17:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "promotional" exemption is quite narrow, mostly to cover situations where there is no other source to illustrate the article, and where the promotional image is there more than solely for illustration. Since in this case there is a drawing of the comics character, and the living actress could be represented by a public-domain photo, the promotional exemption will not apply. --Orange Mike | Talk18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wisconsin OCR
Hi OrangeMike! I saw that you added "wikify" to my new OCR article. I agree it needs to be improved, but I think perhaps we should throw that tag elsewhere also. Did you see the DoR, DoA, DPI, and Lottery articles? They are all are far worse than my new one is...and more important agencies. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, the others need it too; no denying. I used to work for the DPI and the DoR, and currently work for the DCF; so maybe I shouldn't touch 'em? I'm gonna try to do a bit on the rails, starting with the political history of Wisconsin railroad regulation (there are entire books on the topic). Did you know that until a couple of hours ago we didn't have an article about Senator Potter of "Potter Law" fame? It's a wee stub, of course; but it's a start. --Orange Mike | Talk01:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!
We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.
Out of a sheer penchant for drivel, I've penned an essay on BLP noteworthiness. I don't know what I expect from having done so. But I thought I'd share it with you because you're a regular BLP contributor, and I value your understanding of current policy and guidelines, as well as you opinion of if and how they might be improved. If you don't have time or interest, no hard feelings. In fact, if you think I'm being wrongheaded, please leave a comment to that effect. All the best. JFHJr (㊟) 10:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhoo - the page seems to be nothing but an advert to me, but is deletion or reversion back to the redirect the way, or is the page salvageable? With the exception of the Wiki article and their own webpage, Google has no idea who they are.[4]
Not really sure what to do here, so asking for more experienced advice.
Many thanks for your comment. Who knows? The anon editor might take my advice and register with Wikipedia and write the article.RFD (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I google the website the tallestman.com and there was some information about Dave. I also look up an article about Robert Wadlow who was the tallest man. There is a list of the tallest people on Wikipedia. If Dave Rasmussen makes it into the Guinness Book of Records he could be consider notable but I am not sure. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dave is the tallest member of Tall Clubs International; that's not the same as the world's tallest man, a claim he's never ever made. The IP was citing such things as Dave appearing on the Martha Stewart Show, his stunt at-bat for the St. Paul Kings, etc. He does seem to get mentions in a lot of local papers when Tall Clubs convene; but I'm not sure whether that adds up to notability as we define it. --Orange Mike | Talk00:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have more perspective now on your position on paid COI editors.
I'm still learning, but it's an important objective of mine to do right by Wikipedia, which means including a company's layoffs[5], disclosing controversies[6], and using AfC/Talk pages among other things.
I find that Wikipedia could never make enough policies to enforce good ethics among paid COIs, however companies need a consultant to push them to do things that make them uncomfortable and to avoid deceitful behavior, like making otherwise complete articles that omit every hiccup.
I would be interested in getting your perspective, concerns, etc. so that I may learn from them. For example, what actions a COI may do from the Talk page, that would cause you to distrust them or be the root of your concerns - actions I would therefore make sure to avoid myself. User:King405704:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Things that set me off include whining about how reports of misdeeds make them look bad (well, duhhh!); an attitude of "ownership" and entitlement; and an expectation that Wikipedia is supposed to privilege the company's own preferred image of itself, over how reliable, neutral third-party sources see them. --Orange Mike | Talk06:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from a "talk page stalker" (you're welcome to revert if you feel I'm intruding OM): I find that I frequently have to point out to subjects of articles that "You do not have the right to not be embarrassed". If they have ever received negative press, it is almost inevitable that it will end up in the article. Roger (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some rounds in AfC, COIN, etc. and developed some of the same frustrations very quickly - issues I sometimes work through offline as well. I'm curious though because your stance seemed vehemently oppose to paid editing, but these concerns regarding paid editing seem very elementary - the types of things done by a clueless COI. Do you think "smarter" COIs like me, are better because we understand the rules of engagement, or simply more dangerous? User:King405716:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bluntly? I fear you can be more dangerous. Look at what's been done to make Cracker Barrel look better, with the good-faith help of a basically sound and experienced non-COI editor aiding and abetting a COI one to make the COI editor's client look better. I fear this kind of thing will encourage the unscrupulous; and I fear that the PR industry, with its limitless billions of dollars, can apply pressure to open ourselves up in ways that will destroy our neutrality. Once you start taking money for it, you're not an amateur any more, be it baseball or the sex trade. --Orange Mike | Talk17:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw from taking a pot shot at my perceived competition, but at a 5-second glance, I think I see what you mean. Wikipedia is a very vulnerable form of media, not only because it's openly editable, but because editors don't have journalistic training, can be overly trusting, are subject to bow to more persistent editors and so on. (really my competition is (a) doing nothing and (b) direct editing hatchet jobs, not other paid editors) On the other hand, neutrality in the holiest sense is unattainable anyway and the current state of affairs with negative bias is much more severe.
So my question then is, what would it take for one single paid editor to be the exception to the rule? To do things so right, that a paid editing critic like yourself would still see them as an asset to Wikipedia rather than a corrupting influence. What if I was on a mission (I'm not, just saying) to get OrangeMike's endorsement as the one sacred paid editor in the crowd - what kind of behavior would that entail? User:King405720:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retro me, Sathanas!: it ain't gonna happen. I ask the same thing of the COI editors that I seek in myself and other volunteer editors: follow WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:N; plus the additional obligation of disclosure of COI (which is part of why there are so many userboxen on my own userpage: to disclose my interests and biases). --Orange Mike | Talk22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of get the tragedy of commons reference, but what is the shared resource?
What if - hypothetically speaking - I didn't even write the article or any drafts, but merely identified problems, provided references and answered questions. For example, I think every company should - at the very least - share press articles on the Talk page to make it easier for volunteers to expand the article. Where do you draw the line? User:King405703:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm confused. You said "never gonna happen," but also mentioned asking COIs to follow V, NPOV, RS and N + disclosure. If you felt a COI followed those rules, would you therefore find them an asset to Wikipedia? Of course, that's more challenging than it sounds, because a COI will never be neutral - rather the whole point. User:King405703:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Orangemike, just checking: did you mean to put a COI tag and a level 3 spam warning at the same time as the block notification? Writ Keeper⚇♔15:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to make it clear to the account that even if the name is changed, the COI and non-spamming directives still apply. I fear the current template isn't getting the message across to some folks. Did you read the copyright-violating vanispamvertisement that they put in? --Orange Mike | Talk17:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, I sure hope I wouldn't have nominated it if I hadn't. It just seemed weird to me to use templates that add comments like "THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED" or that say "you may be blocked from editing" when they're already blocked; it looked like Twinkle was on the fritz or something. Just checking if it was a bug or something; if you did it on purpose, good enough for me. Sorry! Writ Keeper⚇♔18:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. Your edit to Talk:Anthony Bennett (English politician) appeared on my watchlist, prompting me to wonder who on earth Anthony Bennett (English politician) might be: I'd quite forgotten. I skimread the article and he still didn't look very familiar but I did immediately notice some material that would be, ah, problematic in a BLP and had been there for months. I've deleted the most obvious of this, but I note that the biographee has long been complaining about this sort of thing. Even now, the article is partly sourced to some pretty crappy tabloids; there's probably more work to be done. Better keep an eye on this one. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's got obvious NPOV problems as well as the obvious COI of Bennett himself. While some of his complaints may be legitimate, the subject is obviously desirous of controlling the article to make it match his viewpoint, and doesn't want to hear what we tell him about WP:AUTOBIO, WP:OWN, etc. He's also been skating on the edge of legal threats for some time. As a Yank, I don't know enough about the English papers to deal with the WP:RS questions involved. --Orange Mike | Talk15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. But I merely glanced at his complaints (on the talk page), which I think long predated the material that I removed from the article. As it stands, the article goes into surprising detail about two private prosecutions over matters that have been of huge interest to the British tabloids but are I think of little import to the biographee's ostensible career as politician. However, I'm reluctant to boil these (McCann, Barrymore) down because I have virtually no knowledge of either matter and no desire to spend my limited time boning up on it. I'll just try to look out for further attempts either to whitewash the article or turn it into a hit job. Meanwhile, a concise guide to the British press: Guardian, Observer, Independent, Telegraph, Times: generally worth taking seriously. Mail, Sun, Express, Mirror, Star, News of the World, People: rarely worth taking seriously. -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arg. Stamez? Any thoughts on getting them to actually discuss? Left a note on article talk page, left edit summaries pointing to article talk page, left messages on their talk page (which I had to create)... Or, as I suspect, are we/I/others going to be reverting til we are sick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
commentary or your own personal analysis
>Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Precisely my point. The opinion piece that LooneyMonkey was posting was inappropriate for Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetcafebooth6 (talk • contribs)
Opinion pieces clearly labelled as such may in some cases be referenced as to opinions. Repeated insertion of unsourced assertions by Arpaio instead of the sourced statements of the officials involved does not meet WP:NPOV. --Orange Mike | Talk14:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoggyRide (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Orange Mike, when I moved Edward R. Garvey to that page it is because of another notable Ed Garvey, Edward B. Garvey, but I must have forgotten to make the Ed Garvey page a disambiguation page. Both are commonly known as Ed Garvey and both are notable but one is dead and the other living and more famous.
Now it won't let me move it back, would you please do it? Otherwise there is no way to find the other Ed Garvey if you don't know his whole name.
I don't understand about people from Wisconsin being confused, they would understand most people named Edward Garvey go by Ed commonly and should know if they are looking for a politician or not.
I am sorry I forgot to go back and make the disambiguation page.
We don't make a disambiguation page when there are only two people of a given name; the standard practice is to make the better-known one the target, and put a hatnote on that article directing folks to the other one. I'll put the hatnote for Edward B. Garvey on Ed Garvey ASAP. --Orange Mike | Talk12:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi- please take a look at the message just left on my talk page. I have no idea who the person is who contacted me, and after the problems with the WP:COI issues around the Ron Holloway article, I figured I'd be the last oneever again to assemble and edit an article about a person who I either knew, or (obvioualy) would get to know with just that little bit of interaction already. I didn't respond to it yet- feel it would be best if you, or another person whom you feel qualified, would help and deal with this besides me. I did find, the sandbox mentioned in the note.-- User:Natashasabine/sandbox. I just don't feel like handling this kind of issue again- this is the first time I've ever mentioned Ron's name ever since he was blocked! Can you, please? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Orangemike! Thank you for the kind words: "We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sean Reyes, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject." I am close to Sean Reyes, yes, I support his political campaign. However, in my opinion that doesn't make him any less worthy of a WP article page. The WP editors have scrubbed my first-time attempt to post an article and it still requires some citations. I did launch the article because I DO know him - who else would? However, I am very open to WP editors and other third-party sources updating and revising as long as the content is factual. So, I guess my Q is: where do we go from here in regards to maintenance template and keeping a profile image up on his page? Please advise. Lbrcomm (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "profiles" here: we have impartial articles on notable persons. The current version of the article is still full of fluff about his local clubs and the like, not to mention redundancies seemingly written to puff him up (don't say, "was on a Presidential Commission appointed by the President of the United States himself!"; say, "was appointed to the Presidential Commission on Whatever It Was as a representative of Asian attorneys under fifty [or whatever]").
Even though he's about to get blocked for username violations, I asked for his thoughts on the draft new COI essay. If someone in his position had read the essay, they would know to go to AfC and avoid username violations. Though I haven't looked into it and my guess is the outcome might have been the same. User:King405716:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I believe my request for input for the "Bounty Hunter" Page was a relevant request for information that is NOT included on the page. It was not a forum discussion request but rather a directional directive for the industries future development initiatives. But now that you have removed my input it is a rather moot point. Is there a way to retrieve my work that you sweep away?
Webyankee (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)User Talk[reply]
You were, as you yourself admit, suggesting "a directional directive for the industries future development initiatives": which is totally irrelevant to improving the Wikipedia article about the subject (as were your ramblings about animal bounties). Nothing is lost, of course: if you examine the "history" of the talk page, it is easy to find the deleted content, copy it, and paste it into a TextEdit or other external document for your own use outside Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit on the Six Million Crucifixions page
Orange Mike. I was wondering if we can work together on the Six Million Crucifixions page. As you know someone named Kabel added a new section with a bunch of references but you excised the whole section because some of those references point to blogs. I'd like to make this a good page, so if there are one or more references in that new section that are unacceptable to Wikipedia then let's remove them, instead of the entire section where the objectionable references are posted. Can you please help in this by restoring the section minus whatever objectionable links are in there, and then hopefully we can remove the label on top of the page? If you want I'd be happy to do that and then you can check it. Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the section as added was a standard publisher's puff piece, with carefully selected pull quotes calculated to paint the work as a marvelous and universally-admired piece of historical investigation. It completely lacked the requisite neutral point of view and appeared to have been written by the author, his press agent, and/or his publisher's marketing people. --Orange Mike | Talk20:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see anything in that section that sounded the way you describe it, but in any case I took a stab at editing it to address what I think are your two concerns: neutral point of view and the use of some blogs as references. Please take another look. I removed the references to blogs and rewrote it to make it neutral. Esautomatix (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, I polished the block in question and I believe I properly addressed your two concerns with neutral point of view and references. Can you please take another look? Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have a fan
Check out the comment on this article. I find that these kinds of comments generally aren't supported by the editing history, but I try to help COIs where I can (or at least offer). User:King405703:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can see how the edits this user was making certainly looked like vandalism, it appears they were not. I checked them all, and except for possibly one, they all appeared to be correct. I hope you don't mind that I've gone ahead and accepted his unblock request. – GorillaWarfare(talk)01:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... I'm a big BOTDF fan... I come on here to look for there info and it's not here?????? Why???? They deserve to be on here too. I know i'm new but I mean its not right deleting a page because you dont like it. Please reconsider it, and let me know what you think. --Bradley TheRenatus Herrell (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Orangemike! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottoes. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottoes there or just pass this message onto your friends.
Hey Mike, with regards to this block, your rationale (HLA cannot have an account here; nor can any HLA employee use us to publicize their clients such as Matthew Lutton) strikes me as being outside of policy. Can you explain on what grounds this entity and all its employees are banned from Wikipedia? Is there a decision to this effect somewhere else that I'm not aware of? Are you ad libbing this decision yourself? Please explain. Best, —Tim. /// Carrite (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Just standard no-spamming and forbidden username warnings, explained summarily in a way I hoped would get across to even a PR professional with a spam-only edit history. --Orange Mike | Talk23:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Lutton <---This is not "spam" by any reasonable standard. Nor was your aggressive language "standard." What is "HLA"? If it is a naming problem, why did you not template them for a name change instead of leaping to block? Carrite (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HLA Management Pty is a theatrical agency in Sydney, Australia, who are the agents for Lutton and were using this s.p.a. account to get in an article about their client. --Orange Mike | Talk15:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to recreate this article (possibly moved to Kee-Klamp) using some references I found. Before doing so, I thought it worth asking whether or not there's any salvageable content which has been deleted. Thanks. --- Trevj (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Durdans hospital is a page of a hospital. Therefore I dont see a point where you have to make reverts. the contents which was there on neutral basis and for the purpose of providing information for people. Since its one of the oldest hospitals in Sri Lanka, its better to keep the page without any reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoja.E (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Impartial, properly-sourced content about a hospital is one thing. What I keep having to trim away is a series of long brags about how wonderful and helpful and prestigious the place is, "sourced" only to its own websites and similar advertisements. Please read WP:COI and WP:SPAM, not to mention WP:NPOV. --Orange Mike | Talk12:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might revisit the article? I've had no trouble find enough in-depth coverage with which to expand and source the article. A separate article for this film notwithstanding, a mention of one of their films within The Asylum artiticle is proper, but after researching and working, I'm thinking a deletion now of a film topic with enough independent notability really does not serve the reader. What you nominated as a short lede, minimal plot, and cast-list with no critical response or review,[8] is NOW looking far better through the simple work of addressing issues.[9]Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.23:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Wayne (biologist)
Dear Orangemike,
Wouldn't Randy Wayne be notable for being an adademic (Associate Professor at Cornell), for writing two textbooks (both published by Elsevier), for his pioneering work in biophysical plant cell biology (discovering the involvement of calcium in light-stimulated signal transduction using fern spore germination as a system--experiments that were repeated and extended by many others; for discovering that water in plants moves through proteinaceous channels in cell membranes--again repeated an dextended by others; for discovering a contending mechanism of gravisensing in plants, and for applying his biophysical plant cell biological knowledge to understanding the physical nature of light and gravity)? His work has been covered, not only by articles in scholarly journals, but by independent third parties including the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Cornell Chronicle and the Cornell Daily Sun.
BinaryPhoton (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC) BinaryPhoton[reply]
If this were an accurate description, perhaps; but it grossly misrepresents the truth about Wayne and his non-notable fringe "science" theories. No credible claim of notability has been made. --Orange Mike | Talk19:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Orangemike,
Would you consider deleting the portions that you consider to be fringe "science" and reinstating the rest of the page?
BinaryPhoton (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
BinarypPhoton[reply]
Abraham Lincoln and the vampires and zombies. Werewolves next?
Hi Mike-I saw the book Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter at the public library and I was not impressed. And I do like reading alternative histories-science fiction. In fact there is a movie on YouTube that has Abraham Lincoln as a vampire. What's next-Abe Lincoln fighting werewolves? I hope you, your wife and family are doing well-thanks-RFD (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gene DeWeese, a man whom I liked, both as a person and as a writer, once wrote a horror novel in which it eventually turned out that the immortal vampire who is behind everything is the person known to history as Jesus of Nazareth, who DID rise from the grave... sorta. --Orange Mike | Talk02:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike. I've taken the matter of the HLA123 block to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents. WP:ANI I think is the link. Your block was upheld and I still think it was a block against policy and would like a broader discussion and determination. Best, —Tim. //// Carrite (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something fishy
First I can't link the account, I don't know why. Second I messaged both talk pages so I think if they were connected A message to that effect would be in place. Please look at this [10]StringdaBrokeda (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've received an email from this user asking to be allowed to create a new account for non-promotional edits. I've modified the block settings to allow account creation. Hope this is ok. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My Notability
Mike, I, a living person, would ask you to reconsider my "dubious notability" which casts a dark cloud over my bio. You are seeing a bio that has been in a fight with Mr. Crow doing a lot of deletion, apparaently because he believes I am a Creationist.
Please look at the 4th figure down in the wiki Genetic Code article. That is my work. There are better figures in Commons that I published, including the original journal figure. There are some better figures, redrawn, with changes made only for clarity. The Genetic Code article is high traffic. The first three figures are historic. My contribution of the 4th figure gives students some ideas about future research, e.g., How did the genetic code evolve? Or did it evolve at all? Perhaps you would approve of my notability had a neutral biographer placed such a figure directly in my bio.
There is a Mr. Crow deletion of "Youvan's Method" for correction of FRET - named so by Zeiss and used on their premier microscope, the Axiomat. Most people looking for me are probably looking for those equations.
If I had a neutral biographer, they might also catch last year's Nobel Prize winner Roger Tsien, stating in his Nobel paper (Science or Nature) that Delagrave and I made the first color-changed GFP mutant. On Tsien's website, you will now see a rainbow of colors.
In the past 10 years, I have opted for self-publication and turned down requests from journals. (I don't think you like that style.)
Also, if you like Einstein, search me on Amazon and see the application of his Theory of Relativity to the P versus NP problem. It's sort of funny. That man was enormously honest and gifted.
Mike, I don't like putting text like this into the preface of a book, but here it is: "For more information on Youvan, himself, please see his current Wikipedia biography at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Youvan. His biography is frequently attacked by atheist editors, so you might want to view an earlier version of his biography in Wikipedia's history shown here." (The word "here" is linked to an earlier bio.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.133.196 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't know if you noticed, but I did ask why he made the change and mentioned WP:USPLACE, I didn't find his answer (only one town named Eager) satisfactory. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
adding images to categories in the Commons
Hello Orangemike- Thank you for your welcome. As you know I am new here and have added images for the of the Gee's Slough Effigy mounds in the Commons. In my first round of uploads someone must have been "looking over my shoulder" and added them to categories. When I uploaded two images for the "Gees Slough" Effigy Mound of New Lisbon I was receiving a message that these images were not in a category and so I made the template that Motopark removed called Template:"Gees Slough" Effigy Mound of New Lisbon, WI,...which is understandable in that they had text, etc. that was not what they want to do there. So yesterday I used the "wizard" or whatever it is called and they suggested putting them in the category of Category:Effigy mounds so I have done so after mistakenly putting the code line Category:Effigy mounds in the image file under the |other_fields= position, then I looked at the other images and the way they (those looking over my shoulder originally) had added the category code to the permissions section so I then changed it to try and do it the right way. Now I find that if I am logged in, I will see the images in the Category:Effigy mounds but if I am not logged in I will not see the images in that category page. So I have been trying very hard to "do things right" but I am not sure what the story is and the status of these images. So I am a little frustrated. They are File:Gees slough effigy mounds.JPG and File:Gees slough effigy mounds 2.JPG . So what am I doing wrong? I asked Motopark about this but his answer was a bit of a blow off and he suggested talking to someone else if I need help. You can see the thread HERE.
Thanks OrangeMike: He had not replied at the time of me writing the above. I am not going to fool around with a cache reset when I don't know this whole system that well. I appreciate your effort in identifying the problem and your response.
Kind Regards
Sixa369 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mercian Regional Football League
OrangeMike
Refering to the page 'Mercian Regional Football League'. The page was not created by myself, I edited it because it was incorrect and misleading and was leading to an awful lot of problems.
I may have been confused. Should we have the stadium admin just send us an official request by email? If the return address is the stadium can we accept that as who is the actual engineer? I still can't see why it is so important, but there may be reasons we aren't being told.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Orangemike. Would you be willing to reconsider your hard block of User:SocialHostLaw? No doubt it is a username violation, but barring blatant promotional editing I think the user should have been given a chance to pursue a username change or create a new account. The reason given for the block was that the account 'appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes', but all of their edits look like they are mostly factual and made in good faith. [11][12][13][14] It may have been better, too, if you had written a note somewhere that you had decided to contradict my advice - which is fine, by the way - I just say that because now the user is confused. [15] Perhaps it can be modified to a uw-softerblock? Have a good one. NTox · talk23:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing an op-ed on COI for the Signpost. It's a work-in-progress I just pieced together today, but I'd be interested in what you think.[16]User:King405721:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike, you deleted my Inova Loudoun page. I need to know what it is that is being done incorrectly?
Please advise so that we can fix the error and so that we can create Inova pages without "promoting or publicizing information"
We simply want to state facts. The service lines of the hospital, the facts that according to US News and World Report articles there have been ratings and rankings, and that there are community events available to the public.
Wikipedia does not exist in order for you to publicize your employer. Your edits, as you have been repeatedly warned, are not impartial information, but advertisements. EVERYTHING you have done has been written in marketing-speak, not in impartial legitimate prose suitable for encyclopedia articles. You dumped a steaming pile of promotional garbage like "a rich history of proudly serving our growing and diverse community... We provide compassionate and comprehensive care for the entire family" onto a page and called it an "article". That kind of marketing-speak has no place in an encyclopedia; it belongs in your promotional brochures, and then only in those which don't have to pass any truth-in-advertising tests. --Orange Mike | Talk20:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)The assessment that this content is promotional and inappropriate for an encyclopedia should be pretty obvious. You could be more helpful by disclosing your identity and sharing independent and impartial news articles on the Talk page, to make it easier for an impartial editor to improve the page. As a company representative, you generally shouldn't be astroturfing Wikipedia by endorsing your own products on a community-run site. User:King405720:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David: perhaps you could add a little something at her talk page? I'm afraid that as an historian and writer of straightforward prose, marketing-speak such as that I quote above, combined with her wide-eyed naivete (or pretense of such) does not leave me at my most compassionate and may tend to make me "bitey". --Orange Mike | Talk20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've been bitey too, when I found out a project I donated a substantial amount of time to on a pro-bono basis had been used to promote a PR firm's "thought-leadership." (sound familiar?) Throwing the philosophical arguments aside, Wikipedia needs a quick way to discard editors unlikely to ever make positive contributions to Wikipedia as this content would suggest. On the other hand, the COI warning template as it is, is very unlikely to transform COIs to useful participants. We should improve it. User:King405722:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't block her, because the username was not a violation. She seems to have been Shana [in] Marketing [for Inova], not doing marketing for something called Shana; thus, not a username violation. --Orange Mike | Talk13:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Yes, I found what appears to be Shana's LinkedIn profile, a social media / communications consultant at Inova. Thank you for alerting me on my talk page. I have corrected the block and the block message, but based on the conversation above, and her past actions, I am hesitant to unblock, and would prefer that this editor go through the unblock request process. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it would be possible to conduct a study. If we could analyze how many COIs are blocked within 30 days after a COI notice, we could optimize the COI flag to determine the text that optimizes our conversion rate of disruptive editors -> productive. User:King405720:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how useful that would be, since many COIs aren't tagged. Most of the COIs I've blocked had a username violation and contributed blatant advertising. Those accounts neither get nor need a COI notice, they just get blocked. I also do tag accounts with COI, but offhand I can't recall any that have needed blocking later. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bluford Series Deletion
I appreciate hearing criteria for impartiality, but there is a gray area here. These words HAVE been said by "objective" parties such as the ALA (American Library Association) and the Journal for Adolescent and Adult Literacy (JAAL), and the books have sold over 9 million copies, so there is something to the idea that they are popular! Links to these authorities were in the deleted page. I can edit to address your concerns, but what was on that page is what others--not me--have been saying.
Also, the content of those pages took a while to compile and does not exist anywhere else except on Wikipedia. While I certainly can edit to add reference and more objective or third party language, I would like to get back the content as a baseline from which to start editing. Is that possible?
Mctator
Prestigious Films Deletion
Orangemike,
I do not understood why you deleted my page for Prestigious Films. From what I have read and understood, it was being created in my sandbox and not viewable by anyone else. Therefore, I feel that comments specifying changes would have been more polite than just deleting the whole article. It took me quite a bit of time to complete, I would have appreciated you simply informing me of what I had done wrong.
They're requesting unblock, claiming that they made up the name at random. I don't see any connection to it, much less mention, in the one edit. Is there anything I'm missing in this block? Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did that (as you may know, I tend to block usernames like that only if their edits demonstrate a connection; I have cited situations like this as the reason I don't block on sight). Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Username blocks
Mike, I appreciate your strong desire to uphold neutrality, but I've got to be candid. I think you are making a lot of impertinent username blocks. What makes this problematic is that you are imposing them with the 'hard' parameters when they are highly controversial, consequently suppressing account creation and autoblocking who-knows-what-kind of networks. The note I left you a few days ago was the first time I had ever seen one of your blocks; I assumed it was an isolated incident. I have now taken a short look at your block actions and I see that this is a persistent issue. Some examples include a hard block on one account whose only edits comprised a post to the help desk, an essentially factual userspace draft, and who received zero warnings [17], one who only by a stretch made promotional edits [18], one on a semi-established user who does not appear to have any recent history of persistent promotion [19], one for 'impersonation', when there appear to be zero contributions from the account, deleted or otherwise [20], and one whose only edits were to the AfC review process and constitute marginal promotion at best [21]. These are just a handful of examples taken from one half-page of your block log, all on the basis of the account being 'mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes' (my emphasis). My understanding is that spammers should be issued the relevant level 1-4 warnings before blocks that involve autoblocks and such serious sanctions can be justified. There is no doubt that you are dealing with legitimate username problems - and that even some of the editing is problematic (it is) - but these individuals are new to encyclopedic writing and I cannot in good faith disregard my request that barring truly outrageous promotional disruption, would you consider soft blocks, username changes, new account creation, and warnings? I am of the mind that they are far more consistent with the spirit of good faith assumptions and editor retention. It's never fun to see newcomers acquire a bad taste of Wikipedia. NTox · talk09:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at these more closely. NCSAPR, for example, the one you describe as one who only by a stretch made promotional edits. NCSAPR is short for NCSAPublic Relations. The only purpose of that account was to create a smarmy biography of a sports agent, the guy who founded the company NCSA. So: a company-named PR account, existing solely to garner fame for its owner: why should this be tolerated? A blatant username violation, especially coupled with promotional intent, does NOT need the four-step warning process. Are you even looking at what these people are doing here???? --Orange Mike | Talk13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's in es.wikipedia; I do not believe that we can base a block here on what he/she might be up to on a different Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do a lot of good work here; let me clear of that. And no, the names should not be tolerated. But they should not always be treated with hard blocks. Only in the significant cases. The idea is that blocks, especially when they affect IPs, need to be last resort decisions. There is a consensus in the form of the blocking policy that exhorts us to educate users before locking their accounts (save the IAR softerblock situations) [22]. It is very possible that some of these people are editing from libraries and local patrons are being affected. And because a user adds 'PR' to their name does not mean a hard block should be automatic, and without more conclusive evidence it is inappropriate to say that the only purpose of the NCSAPR account was to garner fame for the owner. Because someone works in public relations does not automatically mean one will be disruptive. There are administrators here who work in public relations, and I know of several PR officials who have been praised for their neutral writing in article space. Not all of them are a lost cause; not all of them harmful. As I said, I am not denying that there is editing short of featured quality associated with most of these accounts, but in many cases they are marginal errors that are easy for any of us to make. In other cases, they are more serious errors that do not deserve hard blocks unless multiple warnings have been issued. This is especially true when one has only posted to AfC, which is in part deliberatively operated for the purpose of assisting good faith COI editors who know they might have trouble writing in mainspace and thus want some guidance first. My impression, in my humble opinion, is that you have a strong point of view on this issue which is making you involved enough so that the block tool is being used in a punitive manner. That being said, many of your username blocks are entirely appropriate, and that's great - but I think many are bitey. I can be wrong, I will never forget that; but I have tried to be consistent with the collaborative spirit that is important for this place. Have a nice afternoon. NTox · talk18:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy request
Hi Mike, I declined your speedy deletion request on Bon Yeon, because books published by a major publishing house (Harper Collins) among others constitutes a claim of notability. I have done no searches to determine if AfD is appropriate or not. LadyofShalott16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have said claim of importance instead of notability - anyway, I think it's enough to pass A7, which is of course much lower than GNG. (I'm not arguing that she is - or is not - notable. I may or may not comment in the AfD.) :) LadyofShalott17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for helping at João Gilberto; I'm despairing of being able to get through to this guy. Problem is, his information is almost certainly correct, but between the COI (I've brought up the issue at WP:COIN) and what appears to be marginal English skills, I'm at a loss how to proceed. I don't want to just block the guy, but darn. --jpgordon::==( o )22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you speedy the speedy delete? She says she left the public eye and industry and is no longer WP:NOT. The source no longer supports the article. Some recent vandal was rather nasty circa June 24/2012 and the edits are still viewable in history.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not marginal enough to qualify for a speedy delete, Canoe. I'd say we should let the PROD process take its course. I'm also a little queasy about the one account, User:Kellieanngray, who can't seem to make up her mind as to whether she is actually Chapman herself, or just somebody (presumably somebody named Kellie Ann Gray) purporting to speak for Chapman. --Orange Mike | Talk15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, why Orange yo have deleted my Page? Can you explain to me please? I'm worked hard for to create it. Is possible for an external link? I only wanted to showing resources..delete the links that you don't feel right, but not all the page please. which is my mistake?
Is possible to made a "rewind"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ippocratus (talk • contribs) — Ippocratus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The deleted article Positive Self Talk Against Panic was deleted as clear and unambiguous advertising. There is no place in Wikipedia for advertising. The broken and incoherent English could have been fixed: we've had many valuable contributions from editors whose English is weak; but the advertising content was ineradicable. If you genuinely think this subject is notable (I don't see any evidence of it), then create a new draft article at User:Ippocratus/sandbox and seek feedback from other editors before proceeding further. --Orange Mike | Talk18:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YoloPolo
"Todd Riser" is not nonsense, he is my friend. And I was not "attacking" Peridon, I was simply inquiring why he deleted my page. Now had I been given time to actually WORK on the page, I could have supplied sources that would have made it very legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolopolo (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. That "article" was pure and complete nonsense, childish babel of the silliest sort. I will not bother to repeat the insult you threw at Peridon for discarding your nonsense. --Orange Mike | Talk00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orangemike - I love the ORANGE! Great pic! With regard to the article I wrote, "New York College of Health Professions," I do take your comments seriously and constructively. Please note that new references have been added where citations were requested. However, I left the "citations needed" indicators in place until approved. Also, in an attempt to satisfy the other two notices which have been up for over two months, revisions to several sentences have also been edited to make them less promotional. I can not find any other sentences without substantiation that could be considered promotional but would appreciate your opinion and or suggestions. I have also written to the editor that put them up asking if there are any other specific sections of the article that need to be revised. Please note that since this college is institutionally accredited, all claims made by the college in their catalogue, website or other literature are continuously monitored and approved by the accrediting agency, I.E. the New York State Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education. To the best of my knowledge, no unsubstantiated claims have been made here.
In summary and in good faith, I am a relatively new editor and am trying to do everything possible to comply with Wikipedia rules, regulations and guidelines. I hope that the current revisions satisfy all concerns. If not, I would appreciate some specifics which I can address. Thank you for your help. Dkolarek (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a rather rough axe to it. Generally any kind of directory listings are ok sources to verify a fact, but not to confirm that something is worth including. Promotionalism was still problematic and prolific. The article could be improved with a history section and more information in the infobox, but it's an ok stub as it is now. The pictures are fantastic. Thanks for contributing them. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Codex of Santa Catarina Ixtepeji
Hey Orangemike I'm back... I'll like to know would this other article be able to aproved kNERO on Wikipedia? --Sarah 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
So I'll say...that's a no.. lol --Sarah 05:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Kennedy (talk • contribs)
Copyvio
I notice Arkatakor's suggestion on Talk:Vassula_Ryden#Further_Comments is also a copyright violation, and a number of Arkatakor's edits are a direct copy and paste out of sources (a number of which I also have removed as copyvio). I think an editor perceived as neutral, such as yourself, would have be able to make a better attempt at convincing Arkatakor that copying and pasting sources when not in a relevant quotation is not acceptable, (my own attempts on Arks user talk page got reverted). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten that I deleted YMCA Victoria Youth Parliament back in 2008, but my first reaction is to notice that there are no actual references in the articles like YMCA Youth Parliament: just links to the YP's own websites. WP:ADVERTISING is not just about commercial ventures: promotional language and boasting are not unique to for-profits. There's a good essay you should read: "Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause". If the parliaments are not notable, they could be deleted on that basis, although YMCA Victoria Youth Parliament was deleted for the promotional tone (apparently ganked straight out of your own promotional materials). Then, we also run into the conflict-of-interest problem: "the media team for the program" is a definition of the sort of person who should not be writing this article, if such an article should even be in an encyclopedia. If these programs are notable, then there should be lots of press coverage available for somebody to write an impartial and neutral article. Don't stroke past Youth Parliament Governors' egos by listing them in an encyclopedia: tell us whether any of these blokes have gone on to actual careers in the real parliaments! --Orange Mike | Talk12:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. If I wrote an article to fill that space, your recommendation would be to only include attributes about the program that are represented in the media?
For example, a 'notable' aspect of the program this year was a survey that determined that all Youth Parliaments across Australia should debate the same Marriage Equality issue. The result of which was majority support for some form of marriage equality.
I take your point that we shouldn't list of Youth Governors except that for the past 4 years at least Youth Governors in Australia have aligned themselves with causes and pushed for particular outcomes. Should those not be listed in an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia?
Mike-I did some research. In the book "Letters from the Brothertown Boys (Andrea Bruckner&Caroline Ander, AuthorHouse, 2011, pg. 26, footnote#11) William Fowler served in the Civil War in the Union War. He died of his wounds in Sulpher Springs, Virginia on October 10, 1862. That has to be added to the article. Thanks-RFD (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay-on page 26 of the book William Fowler was refered to as "the old territorial assemblyman." It sounded like he enlisted in the Union Army at that age-thanks-RFD (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it has to be the same guy! Just add it into the article, properly footnoted (and thank you). (Sadly, in the same war, units of both the Eastern and Western bands of the Ani-Yunwiyah were fighting for the Secessionist side, although comparatively few of them saw combat.) --Orange Mike | Talk19:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike-I googled William Fowler Brothertown Indians and came up with information about William Fowler. I thank you for letting myself help out-RFD (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please see this discussion? I am trying to find out: why is it invalid to reference the shows if a podcast is lacking, when it would not be if there was a podcast? Are there similar rules for referencing out of print books? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereign citizen movement
Quick question re: your recent edit. I didn't see the show in question, and can't be sure from reading the plot synopsis cited: did the show "inaccurately represent[ed] the movement as arguing that by changing one's name..." or did it "represent[ed] the movement as inaccurately arguing that by changing one's name..."? If the former was the actual intent, is there a source that it was an inaccurate representation, i.e. that the movement does not make that argument? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source I can find anywhere which claims that sovereigns make that assertion. (I've worked for at least one government agency where we had a sovereign trying to "revoke" his birth certificate.) The sovereigns in the show all were changing their names to things like "Boomshakalaka" and the like: I am not making this up! --Orange Mike | Talk02:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Yeah, I did notice the weird names in the plot summary, but didn't make the connection. And my "reading" of the possible intent seemed entirely possible. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your pointers and many thanks for getting in touch. I am sorry if my writing came across as too promotional as I did not intend for the tone of the information I added to the page to be like that in any way.
I edited the information with the view to update details which were not quite up-to-date and in some cases were not quite accurate. I simply added to the existing information from the original website used by the original user: for example, by including another section to the page and adding links. I also added a new logo to a page which is linked to the edited page, as the one used was out of date too.
I have looked though Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and have applied for a change of username which should hopefully go through imminently.
attribution of comment on Man in the High Castle talk page
Hi OrangeMike, I apologize for the confusion regarding my recent comment on the discussion page. I inserted my reply in front of an already existing unsigned comment, because I wanted to respond to the signed portion above. I guess that's bad form? So I've moved my comment (which was signed) to the bottom of the section, and hopefully lessened the ambiguity there. The preceding words confused me, but I didn't mean to alter or take credit for someone else's words. Erikacornia (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the clearly promotional material that they had on their user page, and left a welcome in its place, but User:Vayuproduction seems quite like the sort for which you have a special place in your heart. Just FYI, not asking for anything to be done yet, but that account is one that seems like it is headed in a bad direction. -- Avanu (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His face? If we've got a solid fair-use, public domain or properly-licensed picture, why not, given that he is dead? His armorial bearings? Those in the article now are from Commons and perfectly sound, so no copyright issue is involved. --Orange Mike | Talk17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are several out there. I just dont trust myself to know their copyright status and I thought you would correctly check which one we can properly use. Kittybrewster ☎00:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since he's dead, we might be able to make a claim of fair use; but we always strive to find a licensed picture first. There's no reason we can assume that the picture you linked to as an example, for instance, is other than fully copyrighted. --Orange Mike | Talk14:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orangemike! I wanted to know if you'd be interested in being the 4th interviewee for the Signpost interview series I've been working on. I would supply you a list of about 20 questions on-wiki, and then you'd have 1-2 weeks to respond to them at your leisure. I would organize the questions for logical flow and trim some parts for succinctness but otherwise it would be entirely your words as you crafted them. You're one of the most consistent and vocal opponents of paid editing, so I'd really like to have your voice in the interview series. Let me know! Cheers, Ocaasit | c19:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I'm so glad you want to be grilled for the series. Just kidding, it should be a very friendly and hopefully insightful process. The 20 or so questions are here: User:Ocaasi/Orangemike. You can answer them at your leisure, on-wiki of off-wiki, ideally in the next 1-2 weeks. I may organize the questions for logical flow and trim some parts for brevity, but your words and meaning will remain wholly intact. Looking forward to reading your responses! Oh, and if you think any of the questions are biased or there are questions you wish I had asked, feel free to make suggestions or voice whatever views you think will contribute to a great interview. Cheers! Ocaasit | c16:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great so far. Love your candor. Are you interested in trying to get this out for this Monday's signpost? If so, I just need a finished draft by tomorrow morning. If not, we'll go for the following week. Ocaasit | c18:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. Just by chance, was there anything you wanted to add about your personal COI efforts, such as at COI/N? Maybe a story about an article you cleaned up...? Ocaasit | c22:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that update. Just out of curiosity, would you rather be known as 'The skeptic' or 'The protector' or something else... it's just a name for the interview title. Ocaasit | c22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to call you 'the cynic' but I fear people will assume that is my editorializing. So I'm tempted go with skeptic, which is less colorful but also less inflammatory. Unless... you can tell me in a quick sentence why you would call yourself 'cynical' about paid editing, and I'll weave it into the introduction. You can see the progress coming along [[27]]. Two last questions. One, do you want to be referred to as Orangemike or Orange Mike? Two, could you a final query: "Do you think there's a risk from setting a more strict policy that it drives paid editing further underground?" You can answer here and I'll port it over to the two other pages. Thanks Mike! Ocaasit | c02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that you could use "... more skeptical, if not downright cynical..." as the title/headline. But "The skeptic" is certainly accurate enough.
1) Orange Mike.
2) Certainly there is a risk, as there is to more active enforcement of any kind of rules. But we have to take a principled stand on the issue, in order to send a clear and unambiguous message; and as it is, it's not like there aren't covert paid editors with less ethics than the CREWE folks, out there messing with our articles every day . --Orange Mike | Talk03:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We had plenty of length so I didn't trim any of your responses (I just put them in a more logical order). I did leave out the Jimbo quote you added, which although quite fitting anticipates the next interview in the series--with Jimbo! Thanks again for making this so pleasant. Let me know if you have any feedback on the interview process or the draft as I put the finishing touches on. Hopefully it will run smoothly this Monday. Ocaasit | c03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message to me about the Brittany Binger page. I wonder if you can help.
I never meant to "vandalize" anything. I was just a little sketchy on the rules. If the template parts can't be removed that's fine. I understand the "conflict of interest" on things like the Playboy info, as that is all fact and I get the "Neutral Point of View" thing. However, a couple of "personal" notes listed are incorrect and she would like them changed.
If I can't do it, could you or another editor do it so I don't get accused of vandalism? She needs the line about E!Online and her being a "sports nut" removed. She is not one. Also, she is no longer engaged, so she would like the entire line about being engaged removed as well as the reference link to that information.
Removal of properly-sourced content is vandalism. If she has repudiated what E! says she said, then we need a reliable published source saying so; ditto for the reported engagement. The photo now being used is available and acceptable under our current licensing; the fact that her agency wants to use a different one is a matter of indifference to us. If there is another picture which the copyright owner wants to license for use here, then there could be a discussion: see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Remember, please, that we don't allow the subjects of articles to control how they are described in those articles (and we are indifferent, if not actively hostile, to "re-branding" and similar manipulations); but we are also willing and ready to help correct incorrect content, especially about living persons. The way to do all this is by discussing issues on the talk page of the articles (in this case, of course, that would be Talk:Brittany Binger), not by making changes yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orangemike , could you keep this article on your watchlist? There's an editor with a major conflict of interest, who I fear may still not "get it". The article showed up at WP:Copyright problems with extensive copyvio (only mildly reworked). It was also a complete mess of badly formatted, poorly referenced PR, etc. (as you know, since you attempted to clean it up at one point). Anyhow, I completely rewrote it to avoid it being stubbed and the offending revisions were deleted. Anyhow, the editor's at it again. See my latest comments. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RE:William Fowler (Brothertown Indian) - "not in citation given"?
There are some significant problems with this. If it's about the tribe and we presume that the person in question was with them at the time given is WP:ORIGINAL. My second problem is that the indicated pages of the fourth and fifth annual reports and collections of State Historical Society don't contain anything about "Green Bay", "Wisconsin" "1831 and 1836" (the pages are about the 1840s-'50s and basicly about Milwaukee, which is at the "Great Lakes" but nothing about moving/arriving there). I also saw you restored the ref for the birth of date, with the 74th page mark, which is incorrect, though as I footnoted within the article, three other pages does back up his 1815 birthdate. Hook facts must be supported by inline sources, and the source given does not appear to support the statement in the article. LajbiHolla @ me • CP16:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how you are reading the BIA document. I am using the page numbers in the actual document, as pictured in the PDF, not the page numbers of the PDF itself. As to the other: my pagination in the footnote refers to the specific item within the document. I prefer to link to images of the original, not to modern online "reprints"; but I'll see if I can get a more specific URL to the document in question. --Orange Mike | Talk17:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were right about the pages in the Reports and Collections; I've corrected that. As to the other, I don't think it's really WP:OR to say that when an entire tribe was driven out of their home, a child came with them. --Orange Mike | Talk17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide one of the above two cents to close a COIN discission
Hi Orangemike. We are in need of your services to close the Michael Roach COIN discussion. It's gone on too long and the editors would benefit from a consensus close of that discussion and direction on how they can proceed (e.g., Abhayakara's edits the Michael Roach article and cooperation between Nomoskedasticity and Abhayakara to improve the article.). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly understand why you think I have COI, but Uzma Gamal has never edited the Michael Roach article, so your conclusion that she has COI POV is surprising. Have you seen the disputes that have come up on this article, or are you just basing your ruling on the discussion on WP:COIN? Have you looked at the edits User:Nomoskedasticity has done? Abhayakara (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you conclude that an editor has POV when they have not edited an article? POV is based on selective use of sources to present a non-NPOV. Abhayakara (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, I assumed your close "Uzma Gamal has almost as strong a problem with NPOV" meant that Uzma Gamal has almost as strong concern that the article remain NPOV. Apparently, based on the above, that's not what you meant. I don't see anything in that discussion from which to draw the conclusion that "Uzma Gamal has almost as strong a problem with NPOV". In fact, the only other editor regularly working the COIN noticeboards, OlYeller21, wrote in reply to my last post in that COIN discussion, "I haven't seen a reason to bar Abhayakara from editing the page or keeping solely to the talk page."[28] I think we both had a clear understanding of the situation: Editors were trying to edit the article in a non-NPOV way. Editors prompting COIN to declare that Abhayakara has a COI had some reason to limit their article edits to highlighting negative information about Michael Roach and appeared to desired to remove Abhayakara from editing that article via COIN so that the article skew the article away from being NPOV. You might disagree with my assessment of the situation, buta COIN discussion view doesn't make me NPOV. As the COIN discussion neared the end, it was clear to both OlYeller21 and I that Abhayakara had a conflict of interest, but that his hands should not be tied from keeping the article NPOV. In other words, neither of us felt that declaring a COI should result in restricting Abhayakara from editing POV posts from other editors who focused their edits on negative aspects of Michael Roach's live. As regulars at COIN, the two of us expressed our views in hopes of finding a way that the editors of the article could go forward and produce an NPOV article. Similar to my postings in that COIN discussion, OlYeller21 noted near the end of the discussion, "I haven't/don't have the time to read through the volumes of discussion and plethora of media coverage of Roach to determine how the content should be handled but I'm seeing Abhayakara make a concerted effort to apply a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines and policies.[29] Both of us agreed that Abhayakara was capable of making judgments about the neutrality of edits to the article and editing the article towards being NPOV, despite his COI. OP Nomoskedasticity didn't improve matters in that discussion by disparaging Michael Roach and Abhayakara early on for Abhayakara's purported "unfailing" use of "geshe" in the context of Michael Roach.[30] You also advised me in that close to cease editing this article directly and bring up any proposed edits to the talk page of the article. I'm at loss for this. I never edited that article, never suggested a proposed edit, or even commented on that article's talk page. In that COIN discussion, I urged the article editors to place the information in the article in context to help get the article to be NPOV in the face of that content dispute. My efforts in that discussion were directed towards dealing with the COIN issue, so extending the close to assert that I have a NPOV and should refrain from editing the Michael Roach article seem outside my participating in that COIN discussion. Would you please reconsider your close as it relates to me. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken the language which relates to you, with an apologetic edit summary. I was misled, in my first reading, by your echoing of the phrase "Geshe Michael" as used by his followers. (As a Quaker, I'm afraid I don't react well to specialized terms of this sort for spiritual leaders, and I fear it is possible I over-reacted to this.) --Orange Mike | Talk15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I only echoed the phrase "Geshe Michael" in that COIN discussion because I wanted to try to diffuse any agitation Abhayakara might have felt at others implying that Michael Roach, to whom Abhayakara seemed very attached, might not be entitled to the title Geshe outside of the Wikipedia article. I don't think I've ever used the term "geshe" before in my life, and wouldn't normally do so in any Wikipedia discussion, but thought that, in this situation, a little understanding might help. Obviously, in the article, Michael Roach generally should be referred to as Roach. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the first time I've ever experienced religious discrimination. I guess I should feel privileged that it's the first, but it still smarts. I would suggest that you think about this seriously and try to figure out whether you really have any right to claim neutrality, or render a decision, in this discussion. One of my most influential role models when I was a teenager was a friend and teacher who referred to his wife using "thee," but referred to me using "you." It always surprised me a bit, so I can understand why you might take my own use of "geshe" in a similar way, but I always assumed Walt was just being polite. I wish you would assume the same. My use of the title "geshe" may seem the opposite to you, but to say "Geshe Michael" is about as formal as referring to a college professor as "Dr. Jim." If I were being formal, I would refer to him as "Geshe Roach" or "Geshe Chundzin." Abhayakara (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was not "religious discrimination": it was notation of a trivial indicator of a possible non-neutral POV. If I had not mentioned it, in the interest of full disclosure, it would not be an issue (nor should it be), since it is (as I said) trivial. I would have done the same if somebody kept insisting on referring to "Mr. Name" or "Doctor Othername" or "Firstname" or "Professor Lastname" or "Father Firstname" or "His Grace the Duke of Whatever" every time they were mentioned, instead of our standing practice of simply referring to the subject as "Lastname": persistent use of honorifics is a symptom of a non-neutral attitude. I just notice them more rapidly than folks accustomed to using them in daily life. --Orange Mike | Talk17:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fine rationalization, but it's not consistent—if it's at all possible for someone to use honorifics consistently, as Uzma did, then you have an inconsistency. Furthermore, a practicing Jew would generally refer to any Rabbi as Rabbi so-and-so. My wife and I refer to the Rabbi who married us as Rabbi Sternfield. But it would be absurd to suggest that I have POV if I were editing an article about him—I haven't seen him since the wedding, and only saw him about four or five times before that. You justified your position on the basis of your status as a Quaker, but from where I'm sitting it is very plainly discriminatory—you ruled exactly against the consensus among disinterested editors in the COIN debate. Abhayakara (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, if you look at my edits to the article, once I figured out what the house style was, all of my edits refer to Geshe Michael as Roach, to Christie McNally as McNally, and to Ian Thorson as Thorson.) Abhayakara (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits did, yes: but your remarks in the discussion continued to use the honorifics, which in my opinion as a fallible human being was indicative (not probative) of a problem. That's all I am saying. --Orange Mike | Talk18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's natural when someone says something that reflects badly on you to try to dismiss it. But it's not honest. You pat yourself on the back for admitting your mistake to Uzma, after she called you on it, but persist in claiming that you are unbiased, despite having admitted to making a biased decision about her on the very same basis that you say you was a significant factor in your decision about me. Your accusations against me are like those of a disillusioned cop who sees everyone who disagrees with them as a perp, and has lost sight of the reason they joined the force: to serve the public. Your position must be right, because I am a perp, and I can't possibly have a point. I must be grasping at straws, because I can't be right. You overrode two neutral editors, accusing one of them publicly of POV, and managed to piss off another neutral editor who agreed that I should be banned. But it must be you who is right, because I am a perp, and so I have to be wrong. Abhayakara (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I'm reacting too strongly because I'm reacting to your reaction to a misunderstanding of what I am asking of you. I think you think I am asking you to change your mind about me. This is not what I am asking. What I am asking is that you admit that you have a COI bias here, and should not be the one to make this decision, because you are biased against people who use formal language when referring to people they respect. I am asking you to un-make the decision and leave it to some other admin who doesn't think that people who use titles when referring to people they respect necessarily have COI. I understand that you think this, but it is a bias, which you have admitted affected your response to Uzma Gamal. If it affected your response to her, it necessarily affected your response to me. Perhaps you made the right decision anyway. If so, the next admin to review the decision will come to the same conclusion. If not, then justice will have been served. I'm sorry for reacting so strongly above; I did it because I really do feel discriminated against—I'm not just making that up to gain some kind of advantage over you. It's hurtful and surprising to find out that a habitual pattern of speech would cause someone to react the way you did. That doesn't excuse my reaction; I mention it because I don't think you are taking this seriously, and I think you should. Abhayakara (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Mike. I read your Signpost story and thought I would invite your thoughts on my op-ed posted on the same day. I don't think our positions are necessarily incongruent. In fact, there might be some practical ideas there on how to discourage bad actors, as well as some ideas for a project like COOP to encourage useful ones. You know me - I'm always eager to invite my political opposition sort of speak and get the bi-partisan participation. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same IP who pushed the Sally Denton book is back -- including adding links to her interviews and to a book review <g>. And is in edit war mode to make sure her title for the Business Plot is prominently listed (the keeping of the absurd commercial spam redirect is his rationale for saying he will take this to arbitration <g>) I don;t know wehre he was the past few months - but clearly it has not been anywhere near Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any advice that would help this user regarding utilizing wikipedia for self promotion? I am pretty sure she is not going to listen to me.-- The Red Pen of Doom21:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou OrangeMike for knowning that article was to stay in my sandbox only and not ready publishing. Tonya Salmone Williams July 26, 2012 11:14 am Salmone williams (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mail!
Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Please don't hesitate, for my benefit, to delete this after you've read it. I feel that it's only fair to tell you that I mentioned you on Talk:Michael Roach. I don't think I said anything you'd disagree with, and I'm not proposing that you need to respond there, but don't want to give the impression that I'm talking about you behind your back. Abhayakara (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a clear and straightforward mention, and nothing there that really required notification: which makes such notification all the more courteous! --Orange Mike | Talk12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about Jude Southerland Kessler
Hi Orange Mike,
I wrote you a response in a different section, but not sure if it will get to you - seems very difficult to know exactly how to say stuff.
Thank you for your note about my aritcle - but there is a misconception; that article is not about myself although I am related (same last name). I am the author's publisher - her name is Jude Southerland Kessler, and is rapidly becoming known as THE John Lennon authority.
As you suggested, I've asked someone from "the list" to move the article to my user page before it gets deleted. But, I followed the guidelines provided, included references and authentication and links so I don't understand why it would not be used in the Wikipedia, like several of her author friends. I used one of their bio's as the template.
She really belongs on Wiki as a reference; she is friends with Cynthia Lennon, Pete Best, May Pang, Louise Harrison, Stella McCartney, Allan Williams, etc, etc, so for research purposes she should be on there.
Help!
Thanks
Kessler9091 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike, you know I don't like blowing the whistle. But this was not the correct action, yes? There are no edits from the account, and it is a hard block. I assume that your hard block itself was a mistake, but it wouldn't matter otherwise since there are no edits. Edits / no edits cannot be an interpretative problem. Your work in sum is appreciated, but please discuss this policy if you don't like it. NTox · talk19:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a hard block, it was a softerblock. There is no way in which a school can have an account, so I used the appropriate block. --Orange Mike | Talk19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the block parameters, 'account creation' is blocked, and the autoblocker is not listed as disabled. Am I mistaken? NTox · talk20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Orangemike. As mentioned, I can believe that the hard block was a mistake, and I appreciate your friendliness despite this criticism. However, I can't leave this discussion without inquiring about the more important issue: that you seem to be okay with ignoring the “Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked” (emphasis in original) instruction that is explicitly stated in the username policy. In good faith I ask you why you choose not to follow that instruction. When it comes to the policy statement in those quotations, are you choosing to invoke the IAR clause or do you in fact believe that a block like this one to be within the rules? I am honestly asking in a non-rhetorical manner so that we may come to a solution. What this comes down to: you are right that the username is a violation, but that does not mean a block is a required response, according to consensus. Compare this to an administrator who blocked vandals after only one edit and responded to criticism by saying "the block was appropriate, because vandalism is prohibited by the vandalism policy." In sum, as stated above, do you believe this and similar username blocks are appropriate according to the quoted statement? NTox · talk21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-officeconnect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Hi Mike-the unincorporated community is in the town of Mount Ida in Grant County. Mount Ida is located next to the town of Fennimore on the west side. I have the DeLorme Atlas of Wisconsin. Also I restored the gnis citation for the article. Hopfully I can get a map and infobox for the article set up. Also the usage of hamlets in Wisconsin it would be unincorporated communities. Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Grant County template. I think the town of Mount Ida was created after Wehrle was living in Fennimore-RFD (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike I came across the 'History of Grant County,' Castello N. Holfield, Walworth Publishing Company, 1900. The Town of Mount Ida which includes Mount Ida and Werley was formed from the town of Fennimore in 1877 with first town elections in 1878. pg. 708. Wehrle was town chairman of the Town of Fennimore but before the Town of Mount Ida was created out of the town of Fennimore. There may be info about Wehrle in the same book-thanks-15:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
COI+ certification proposal
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.
Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't been agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Geocode". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 August 2012.
Hi Mike, I'd like to make a constructive criticism. Please consider using {{RD3}} or one of the other HD templates for situations like this. Based on discussion at Astray's 2011 TfD and on the documentation at {{astray}} itself, we should avoid using it when the user makes no indication that they are unaware they are at Wikipedia. Now it may be that nothing at WP:HDT fits a common scenario that you see; I myself was puzzling over which template might be suitable for that particular query, then I saw your response via edit conflict. I would be interested in doing the necessary template work to address that sort of concern, so feel free to let me know if some additional wording options or maybe even a new template could help. Thanks, BigNate37(T)20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not going to use a service right, I am not going to use it at all. 13:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.8.110 (talk)
Mike, even though you removed my external links, I appreciate you reviewing articles and helping to maintain the quality of Wikipedia. I am also annoyed by Wikipedia links to pages full of ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, and other junk.
I added the link to 1888ARTICLES.COM, because the article seemed balanced and informative, and was the best source of additional information I could find. Since then I found and added a much better source from a 1980 patent filing.
The shrink wrap article contains the sentence, "The most commonly used shrink wrap is polyolefin." The statement appears in many vendor's web pages, but not in a peer reviewed publication. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have. In the mean time, I added a citation needed tag.
Last June, I "improved" the article Metering pump by reluctantly adding a link to Cole Parmer Company, which sells such pumps. I have since read our rules on external links which you pointed me to, and wonder if I should remove the link to Cole Parmer.
Thanks for taking on the difficult task of being a Wikipedia administrator.
1) There should be books or magazines which say the same thing; patents are very company-specific. 2) Yeah, that should come out. 3) Thanx. --Orange Mike | Talk02:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In seven years here that is the first time that's ever happened. Thanks for the heads-up. (Surprising that that article draws that kind of attention year-round). Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I'm sure that for some younger viewers, the recent re-make is the primary topic in their own minds. These rules are in place for a reason. --Orange Mike | Talk15:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Geocode, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
OK, though User:Emotionpictures removed edits by User:Fwe506 who asked for my advise and as soon as he readded, in revised prose, it was removed. I know that is a content issue but I was just wondering because the new editor came in to edit the same article 5 minuets after another editor get blocked from that same article. Maybe I'll rephrase what User:Fwe506 was trying to add and see what happens. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff Fwe keeps adding in belongs more in the article on the book than in the article on the film. In this tiny article, it comes across as distinct undue emphasis on a minor point, and indeed as an advertisement for "Captain Charity" and his project. --Orange Mike | Talk00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I told him that the character being derived from the Heroes Welcome UK founder John Senior would seem appropriate especially if he could add some details about other characters without any undue emphasis on the organisation itself or its fund raising which as you say is appropriate to its own article. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kindly thought; but as a Baptist turned Quaker, the Romanist pilpul involved in distinguishing between the Papacy, the Holy See and the Vatican State is so far outside my expertise that I shall sit this one out. --Orange Mike | Talk13:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen your comments re Charity and Senior and on reflection you are quite right as perhaps the additon didn't sit comfortably, I was just trying to add a supporting link. Many thanks for your advice Fwe506 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike wrote, "I knew at least two prominent members of the local antisemitic/racist groups on a first-name, welcome in the house, basis back where I grew up in West Tennessee; that does not make this fact 'notable' in any way, nor does that mean that they were in any sense my mentors."
Mike, did you write about those people in a famous memoir, as Frank was written about in Dreams from My Father? Any relationship written about in that very notable book is, in turn, likely to be notable. There are a number of scholars who have characterized their relationship as a mentoring relationship (and, those scholars have signed their real names to their work). I will defer to those scholars sooner than I defer to "Orange Mike."
Frankly, no, I don't. The persistent eagerness of the American radical right in trying to find commies under the bed of an Eisenhower Republican like Obama is really pathetic. I know a lot of people who'd voted for Obama in 2008 hoping that some of the fire of the people you obsess about did rub off on young Barry; but instead are forced now to choose between voting for the disappointing conservatism of the actual Obama presidency, or abstaining and letting the Romney-Ryan back-to-the-Coolidge-era ticket triumph. --Orange Mike | Talk15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are we doing wrong to violate anything by adding our non commercial website to the ostomy pages on wilipedia. We are Non commercial. We accept or contain no advertising - we promote no product or service - we list everyone in the ostomy world for free - we are basiclaly the wikipedia answer to the ostomy world - all we do is send free ostomy puppets to the millions of children in countries all over the world to help them to adjust to life with a bag. Do you wear an ostomy Bag? If not you cannot imagine how difficult it is for children to live life with a bag containine facel or urinary output or both is like.
How are we violating content on wilikpaedia. We have written books on the subject yes, and they sell but all the royalties are ploughed back into the puppets for kids and are not mentioned on wikipaedia - When we send the puppets out, they go with no commercial advertising materials or commercial information, just the puppet plus its stoma and bag, all of which we make at our expense. Tell me how we are infringing anything? check out www.thebowelmovement.co.uk - yes, you will find hundreds of manufacturers in our links and informational pages but contact any of them and ask them if they ahve paid for this or if they have given us anything for putting the link on the site - zero, nada, niente nothing - all we want to do is to spend our pensionable years helping people and people like you are trying to stop us get the word out to people who really need it. Do you know how much the so-called associations make annually? Their directors salaries? How much more they get from the government? Yet they don't update their webistes, just carry on taking money from patients who think they might be able to help. The director of one UK association mined over 1 million in salary and expenses last year yet you don't stop them from listing? Concnetrate on people who really abuse wikipaedia for their own commercial enterprises. I am bed bound. My husband is my full time carer. We are both over 60 but all we want to do is to get the word out that there are ostomates in this world for 50 medical reasons - more than cancer - yet no one talks about them because it is below the belt. Millions of these are children under 10 - can you possible imagine what they go through - no sport - strict diets - no real clothing choice so they cannot follow fashion - hardly any holidays - these kids need people like us and we need to get the word out that all they ahve to do is ask and we will sned a free puppet anywhere in the world at no cost (providing a health professional can verify that they are authentic). 12 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhosymynydd (talk • contribs)
Dear Orangemike, if you have a moment could you please have a quick look at EaglesandFootball, their contributions, and my recent AIV report, which may well not have been the right way for me to tackle it, in which case sorry. I note that you have encountered this user before and I wondered/hoped you might have some insight into what's happening here. I *think* it's all garbage but I'm trying to AGF... Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your swift intervention. I will try and drop you a line later but am in terrible haste right now. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Orangemike, you ducked a bullet ... I don't actually need to send you the threatened/implied longer message! (Which would have been very boring.) I was concerned about the user's other edits but the situation is pretty much resolved. Thanks again for your help, with all good wishes DBaK (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS You would have liked London during the Olympics and especially our bit of North London. Alexandra Palace temporarily became the Heineken Holland House and was lit and decorated appropriately and much visited by Dutch fans. I have literally never seen so much orange in one place! :)
It is possible that the same blocked user is back. The IP edited the blocked user's page, and seems to exhibit the same mix of apparently real edits and seeming garbage (e.g. 2014 World Cup dates changed with no apparent reason). I don't get it. As always with these cases I fear it's someone writing a dissertation and this is their new experiment. :( 138.37.199.206 (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Teahouse
Hello Orangemike, I acknowledge your work and your experience. At the Teahouse we have a specific method regarding how visitors are interacted with there. We answer in a friendly, forgiving and patient manner; we welcome visitors and explain Wikipedia policies without warnings and accusations. You can learn more about how the Teahouse functions differently here, for example, at our Host Tips page. Thanks for helping us keep the Teahouse the super friendly and proven-to-work space that it is. heather walls (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, while your answers are completely correct, some of the language can add to the fear that people have editing Wikipedia (and believe me, I at least a little bit understand how frustrating it can be to see the same mistakes over and over and attempt to be patient with them). A phrase like "...about the enormous problems you have here." might make a new editor reading through the answers afraid to speak lest they be admonished, at least I would feel that way. While we want to be honest and clear with people, it's going to take some time for new people to learn the ropes, and at the Teahouse we strive to be extra friendly and patient based on the research that was done in preparation for the project. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! heather walls (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds like socially-inept Uncle Gaijin needs to keep out of the Teahouse and let the hosts and hostesses do their thing. Such is life: every day you learn something new, whether you want to or not. --Orange Mike | Talk12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just a heads up that I removed the prod tag you placed on the subject page because user pages cannot be prodded. Feel free to take it to MfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk20:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woodland Pattern
Hi, Mike! Thanks for chiming in on the "debate" about Woodland Pattern. I'll admit I was a bit hasty in my creation process (I got all riled up about how entering this term in the search bar takes a person not to poetry but to military camouflage!), but I wanted to let you know that I based my general approach on the article about Ada Initiative, which includes a boxed mission statement. Maybe once the WP article is developed more fully, that part can go back in. I appreciate any assistance you can offer with developing the article further--hope you are enjoying summertime! --Jgmikulay (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my response to the Indian Residential School System page did not match the criteria for this site. My intention was good but I have no idea how to use wiki and to be honest I find this site way to complex to figure out !
I just happened to see my film, "Sleeping Children Awake" posted with the wrong production date and thus the blind attempt to correct that error. I also tried to post a more in depth description of the documentary, only to help fill out the content , in case it could help others in their specific search , also not understanding that this may not suit wiki's rules.
I also attempted to correct the name of the director which lists Wikibirdy (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Magic Arrow Productions. A company did not direct the documentary video. It should read Rhonda Kara Hanah as it appears in the final credits on the closing of the video.[reply]
Thank goodness there are smart cookies like you who can manage this site!
It's even more important with issues like this of such significance to First Nations people, that we must be scrupulous in how we handle ourselves. Thanks for being understanding. --Orange Mike | Talk18:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nicer block message, please?
Hi Orangemike. You recently blocked 3 Speaker High (talk·contribs) as a {{spamusernameblock}}. The user was trying to get answers to questions they had, and was working well with other editors (see here and here). I'm afraid that the user will get scared and leave Wikipedia, so would you please consider unblocking and leaving a friendly note, or using a more good-faith and less overwhelming block template? Thanks, David1217What I've done19:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been more open to doing so, except that they admit themselves that they're only here to advertise the band whose name they are using. Otherwise, a softerblock would have been in order; although they could also have been hardblocked for impersonation of a band of which they are not a member, thatwould have been overharsh. --Orange Mike | Talk19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you gave them that blocked template; however I would like to keep one of the few newbies I've found who communicates well. Thank you for changing the message. David1217What I've done19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally solid block, seems to have had the desired effect, they have retracted their threat and apologized for their other obnoxious behavior. I'm thinking unblock but checking with you first as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought so. Although I must say that his mother is more relevant than his grandmother who was never seen in an interview while Dahmer's mother was in fact seen in an interview Right?. Nienk (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GraceAG
Please unblock User:GraceAG. After the user posted his/her ownership messages, I attempted to reach out to the user to help her/him understand how WP works. Then, someone hauled him off to COIN, then another person to UAA, then you blocked her/him. Except that GraceAG hasn't edited since the original set of messages. In other words, we have no idea right now if the person is willing to work within WP policy. You can't say that blocking GraceAG prevented disruption, because we have no way of knowing whether or not, once made aware of our rules, GraceAG would be wiling to comply with our policies. I know that it may be unusual, but there really are people with a COI who, once informed of how WP works, learn to edit within the rules. Your block is not appropriate per either WP:BLOCK or WP:BITE. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did use a causeblock, rather than a spamusername block, for just that reason. Do you really think the causeblock template is all that bitey? --Orange Mike | Talk02:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think any block in that situation would have been bitey. The editor was blocked for things they had no knowledge about. After being informed of the rules, the editor didn't make any edits at all, much less any edits that violate our policies. This was not a case of vandalism, where every reasonable person would know better. This is the case where an editor thought they understood the Wikipedia page to be something under the church's control, even though it's not. Since the editor had not edited since being informed, you had no reason to believe that your block was preventing any disruption to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Omike - Can you re-do this move [31] (in the with-accent to without-accent direction) -- silly know-it-alls have moved it back. The accented name needs to stay, I suppose, as a redirect so it can't just be salted in the usual manner, but is there nonetheless some way to prevent anyone from doing another move back to the accented name? Thanks. EEng (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Well done, thanks. EEng (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peggy Krusick
Hi-I am having problems with the Peggy Krusick article; one on the editors Milwaukee7 edits the article and makes the lead sentence unclear. I think the editor wants some information in there. I had to revert the article back to your edits twice. Can you do something. Thanks-RFD (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Milwaukee7 is creating problems with the Peggy Krusick article again this morning. I reverted the changes. Thanks-RFD (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create or write the Wikipedia entries on me, but I did update the bibliography last year. I thought that was a service to the readers and I did not realize it was a policy violation. I apologize and will certainly avoid that in the future. John D Caputo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcaputo (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Another editor is editing the Peggy Krusick article. Maybe you could take a look at the edits. I have not reverted the edits. I think the 2 editors involved are only interested in this article especially sine the Wisconsin August Primary Election. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that since Krusick lost her nomination, these sorts of fluffy advertising-like edits don't do her any good (unless they are looking to the future, or looking to undermine her opponent). --Orange Mike | Talk15:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you are a regular of WP:UAA, you are invited to participate in this RfC, which may influence the noticeboard. Have a good one. (I know you have already opined there, but I thought I'd still add you in the mix of contacts vis-à-vis this message.) NTox · talk09:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will never be officially recognized, because it's a made-up term designed to castigate one's foes
Orangemike, take a chill pill. I didn't add commentary or anything else to the article. I was simply reverting StopYourBull's nonconstructive edits. Please feel free to edit the article if you see something amiss. --Hamitr (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits give the impression that this made-up term will be recognized, by actual psychological professionals; whereas in fact this is just a political cheapshot by a propagandist for one side of a running dispute. --Orange Mike | Talk12:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Orangemike. The deletion log shows that you deleted Ben Wynter as G11 at 17:15, 13 May 2010 and again at 16:08, 18 May 2010. On the second occasion, you pointed out that it was "almost word-for-word identical to the last deleted version" and "hopelessly promotional". Well there's once again an article on the same person by the same creator. Not being an admin I can't tell if it's the same as or different from what you deleted, but it's certainly very promotional. I'm gonna chop off the copyedit tag and mark it {{GOCEreviewed}}, but it's about all I can do. Is it still a G11? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same old stuff, by the same editor as the one who created the second one (and a probable sock of the one who created the first iteration). --Orange Mike | Talk13:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hoplophobia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
"to pretend that this is anything other than a pejorative is the NPOV violation here!"
Orangemike, you do realize that simply making an assertion like this doesn't justify your repeated reverts, right? If some people claim it is a pejorative, then you should have no problem finding a source to support it.
Hi Orange Mike, Thanx for your input. I have read the guidelines and have made my best to adhere to them. I have been working diligently to amend and enhance the quality of the page as now it is far from being a neutral reflection of the company and the business opportunity it constitutes.
There are literally millions of QNET members around the world and without exaggerating, this article is an offense to most of them. When I told my parents I want to join QNET the first thing they did was do a background check, and for most people, that means wikipedia!
QNET is a well established corporation by now, 700 million dollar revenues in 2007 according to a source on Forbes.com.. The company has double the number of IRs than Herbalife for one thing and as pyramid schemes are unsustainable, QNET was long supposed to be dead by now, but the reality is its one of the very few survivors who made it past the 10 year mark.
It has reputable leadership (Dato Vijay Eswaran is a DATO in first place) and the company is the sponsor of the most prestigious sport events. None of this &good stuff& transpires from the current article.
That being said, please help me fix this page, I submitted new content pertaining to the business model and corrected some mistakes(please read above), I was hoping that I had received sufficient backing to make some important changes from the numerous exchanges I had with two other Wikipedians till now.
All I can say is that whoever wrote the article was biased and inaccurate. The history section has little substance, there is no talk of the management/leadership, the business model part is flawed, the $250 dollar figure quoted seems to have come out of the blue and guess what, its senseless in the absence of background info.
Furthermore, the references on the current side that I opened are non existent, inactive links or similar..
THE VERSION THAT I UPLOADED contained high quality references such as FORBES.COM, which is probably the most reliable and authoritative source of the whole article if we really want to be picky
I am offering BETTER sources and making the page more meaningful so I really dont understand why am I encountering so much resistance in improving the quality of the page (which now is mediocre at best)
(Wikigeekpower (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Hi Mike! I saw that you are an administrator, could you please check this discussion on this Eric Harris picture? I think it's all right, could it be closed? Thank you and sorry for bothering you. Nienk (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Mike, I asked you something on the discussion page. I find it rather difficult to end this all haha. Sorry again for bothering you. Nienk (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at Steven (WMF)'s talk page.
Done.--ukexpat (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Not doneThe article was not "deleted because I don't like it". The article was deleted twice, after two discussions agreed that the band doesn't meet our standards for band notability. See the discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the Dance Floor (group) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood on the dance floor (band). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.133.196 (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Codex of Santa Catarina Ixtepeji at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
![16:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemike#c-Niemti-2012-05-16T16:42:00.000Z-Why_did_you_delete_"Jinx_Retaliation.jpg"?){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jinx_Retaliation.jpg){kind=link}
![17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemike#c-Niemti-2012-05-16T17:07:00.000Z-Why_did_you_delete_"Jinx_Retaliation.jpg"?){kind=link}
