User talk:Orangemike

TUSC token fa255ad995d61b015320a1a04245a250

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Nomination of Jill Kenton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jill Kenton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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.

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

Shiny thing

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

Merry Christmas!!

For all you do!! Have a wonderful HOLIDAY!!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Help regarding the page

Hey, OrangeMike, I hope you will help me with the article on Trashness. I really want to make the article clean and neat. Please help me improve the article and fit for publishing on Wikipedia. I really have a lot of hopes from this article. Kindly, remove the warnings by helping me edit and give tips to make it clean. Thanks a lot ! Regards, Aminuddinshroff (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's an advertisement for a brand-new, very obscure blog. It has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:East–West Schism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:East–West Schism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Needing an Admin again... Deja Vu?

Hey, there's an article: Dragan Petrović, that appears as a promotional piece, written probably from the subject of the article itself. The entire article stems both from the guy's personal site and Facebook page. The piles of photos originate there, leaving doubt as to copyright. Whomever is (doing an exceptionally bad job) editing, is untrained, doesn't edit any other articles. Once again, this is about a jazz musician being edited by someone with a username of User:Jazzycrazy, both on Wikipedia and Commons. As you know, I went through all of this with a person editing their own article, and how badly that turned out. Fortunately, I don't know this person, but I find once again the same clues as to possible copyright issues with the pics, probable violations of WP:OR, and more. This article was tagged in January, 2010-- three years ago with a question of notability. THREE years ago? I concur. There are plenty more notable musicians with great accomplishments that need attention. Please help with this. Please answer on my talk page. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for G11 speedy.--ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Second coming of Dragan Petrović

The Dragan Petrović has been re-created. I noticed you had been involved in the previous deletion. I am not a deletionist but I'm willing to concede to previous decisions. Please help iron this out. Chris troutman (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If the subject is willing, and other editors work on it, and can provide appropriate references I haven't any issue with him keeping an article on the Wikipedia- I even checked out his music on You Tube (liking it, too!) thinking the article would just need an infobox and cleanup, but I do have a problem with people who create and edit their own articles, primarily to promote their own careers, which it really seemed to look to me. I had a previous problem with the same circumstances with a different musician and it became a bad situation, which is why I am not the person to make choices of any kind about this, and why I was asking User:Orangemike both because he was instrumental in resolving that scene, and because he's an Admin., and seems to be fair. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The world is full of musicians I never heard of, and that's not a problem; but the "article" I deleted after recreation was purest crap, full of lines like, "His compositions are truly elegant and inspiring", "Every new recording continues to keep listeners in anticipation of his next musical adventure", "impressive emotional range that will captivate the ears of jazz and fusion music lovers of all tastes", and "manages to capture the ear in both its; good taste and understated subtle sophistication offering jazz music lovers of all tastes a palette of elegant musical cuisine"! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Christian pilgrimage sites

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Christian pilgrimage sites. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please would you reassess Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annemarie Kremer

The article Annemarie Kremer has developed substantially since your nomination, and you may form a different view. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You are a scholar and a gentleman I, too, felt that the article did not make the cut initially. Now it assuredly does. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The DO-IT Center

Hi! I hope this is appropriate. (The Wikipedia newcomer's guide suggested it.)

You tagged my (first) article for deletion, The DO-IT Center, because you found that it failed Wikipedia's notability guidelines and described it as a "campus center." That was my fault (i.e., the DO-It Center is notable; I failed to properly present and cite the material). I used your critique to address the issue of notability by adding additional information on DO-IT's nationwide and international programs, Awards, Impact, etc. I also replaced "self-sourced" citations with notable third-party citations (New York Times, Seattle Times, etc.). If you have any feedback on other ways I can improve the article, please let me know.

Thank you, AlmostRutger AlmostRutger (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly highly appropriate! The ongoing Article for Deletion discussion is the best place to make your case. If it passes the AfD, then the place for the discussion is the talk page of the article itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

COI questions

Hey Mike, I'm currently working on a draft rfc to help nail down policy on financial conflicts of interests and paid advocates. I'm curious if you think this would be fair and useful: User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Luckett (businessman)

For your information, I've removed the speedy deletion tag from Bill Luckett's article. It's been there for two years and has survived articles for creation. I think articles for deletion would be a more sensible fate for it.--Launchballer 21:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Rose for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Rose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (4th 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 notice from the top of the article. Rogerthat94 (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Computus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Computus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Big battle and apparent COI at NWA Hall of Fame

I just wanted to make you aware of an editing battle between User:Ericsax and User:HHH_Pedrigree at NWA Hall of Fame. Ericsax has made dozens of edits (adding championship titles for wrestlers) to the article since October and then HHH has reverted all of those edits in two reverts of about 37,000 bytes last month and 20,000 today.[1][2]. I have no idea if Ericsax's content is appropriate for the article or not (HHH thinks it's "too much") but in the past few hours Ericsax has added back all the content that HHH removed, and he wrote an edit summary which is essentially an admission of a conflict of interest, as well as a huge misunderstanding about who "controls" Wikipedia articles. His edit summary says, "Please do not undo this again. I have the permission of the NWA to put all the NWA titles the NWA Hall of Fame Member has won."[3] So it appears that Ericsax works for, or has a close association with, the NWA, and mistakenly believes that the NWA controls the content of the article. I just wanted to make an administrator aware of this situation. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: The battle continues. See this revert of 21,000 bytes. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I want you to understand that I have the permission of the NWA owners to put ALL the NWA titles that the NWA Hall of Fame member won in the NWA. HHH Pedigree originally deleted my work after the new members were announced last year.

If HHH pedigree believes that the NWA Hall of Fame page should not include all the titles from the NWA, then the WWE Hall of Fame page should not include any references from the NWA, AWA, Mid-South or anywhere else. It should be focused on what that person in his accomplishment in the WWE, not the NWA, AWA or others.

Last year, the NWA allowed a small number of people including myself on a committee on Facebook call the NWA HOF Committee, to help decide who was going to be inducted into the NWA Hall of Fame last year.

I am not sure if you are a wrestling fan or not. I will use this as my example, if you asked either Dory or Terry Funk, Harley Race, Ric Flair, Dusty Rhodes (or his sons Cody and Dustin), Jerry Brisco (brother of Jack), Sabu (nephew of the Original Sheik), the family of Freddie Blassie, and many others that they would want to have all of their NWA titles they won on the page of the NWA Hall of Fame.

Please understand that until the 1990s, the NWA only controlled 2 titles for the men (World Heavyweight and World Junior Heavyweight) and the NWA Womens title. All the other titles were company titles.

I have had a private discussion with one of the NWA owners on Facebook over the weekend and quoted this to me "Thanks for your efforts to fix the wiki page" on Saturday at around 11:00 am.

I sent a message to HHH Pedigree about this as well.Ericsax (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)ericsax

I want you to understand that we don't care what "permissions" NWA does or does not delude themselves they can grant for edits to Wikipedia. I further want you to understand that your close connection with this subject means you should not be editing this article, or those on the competitors to the NWA. I am not a wrestling fan; but the word of Dusty Rhodes or Jerry Brisco has no more relevance here than that of Snooki, Silvio Berlusconi or Pinkie Pie has to the articles on their areas of fame. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I answered in the talk page. The Wikiproject only put the most notable championships, not all the championships. If Dusty Rhodes won the NWA WHC, we put it, but we don't put if he won 30 regional, no notable championships. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ericsax, your comments, particularly the opening sentence saying that you "have the permission of the NWA owners" to add certain content to the article, indicate that you either have not read Orange Mike's comments on the NWA Hall of Fame talk page, misunderstood them, or are inexplicably choosing to ignore them. The NWA and its representatives have absolutely no say in how the article is edited. The article belongs to Wikipedia, not the NWA. The NWA has zero authority over the article's content. In fact, they have a gigantic conflict of interest, as Mike clearly pointed out. So even if you in fact had "a private discussion with one of the NWA owners", it is meaningless. Article content is completely controlled by Wikipedia's volunteer editors, based on the encylopedia's policies and guidelines. I have no opinion on whether the content you want to add to the article is worthy of inclusion or not, but you are welcome to to discuss it on the article's talk page with other editors in order to achieve a friendly and productive consensus. In any case, I'd strongly suggest that you stop invoking any personal connection you may have to the NWA; it's only hurting your cause. Please, just listen to what Mike is telling you. You should not only stop editing articles about the NWA, but also those about its competitors. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike, then I would the same thing to apply to HHH Pedigree about any editing I may do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsax (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, Eric. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ericsax, Mike can certainly respond, but what exactly do you mean when you say that the "same thing" should apply to HHH about any editing you do? You are the one who has acknowledged having a direct, personal connection to an owner of the NWA. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WWE signature moves

Could use some comments at the above article..been open a week and no one has come lol. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Medgar Evers

Hi Mike--I was asked on my talk page to look into recent edits. I haven't looked at various talk pages there (so I don't know if you've taken action yet), but the edits themselves have a high "holy shit" content. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the offending editor and warned him/her about spurious accusations of vandalism and incivility/personal attacks, D-ro: mi esperas ke ĉi-tiu sufiĉos. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ve shall c, Mr. Mike. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: blocking of user VHlab

Hello Orangemike, I was disappointed today to learn that you blocked my username VHlab. I understand you believe there is an apparent COI, despite the fact that we are a non-profit, open access group sharing many of the values of Wikipedia (dissemination freely of knowledge and education). How can I access the code/markup of the sandbox of the user VHlab? Would it be possible to have it sent to me somehow? I can no longer access the revision history of the sandbox. Thank you, Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.136.10 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Mike, but it seems that this is a pretty clear-cut case. First of all, your account was blocked because it violated our username policy: Wikipedia:Username policy. Second, the page you created, The Atlas of Human Cardiac Anatomy, was both promotional and contained a huge amount of copyrighted material which could, in addition, only be described as promotional (and could, conversely, in no way be described as neutral). Third, one wonders what content you wish to access, since most of it was copied from pages such as this one and this one. If it's the coding you wish to preserve, that's unfortunate, but the page as you had created it was in no way acceptable for Wikipedia anyway. I hope this answers your questions. You are welcome to contribute under a new username, as long as you make sure that your edits are neutral and follow our guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As Drmies says, just because you are a non-profit does not exempt you from following our rules about corporate role accounts, etc. Wikipedia is not here to promote your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. Our strictures on self-promotion make no exception for non-profits. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but would like to access the coding anyway. Is there a way to do this? BTW Drmies, you're extremely rude- would you address me this way if we were talking in person? Simply no need for it. I understand now from Orangemike that I was in violation of the terms and appreciate his respectful and educating responses. I didn't read the hundreds of pages of documentation before creating my first page. I'm sure it's frustrating to you and the community that people do exactly what I did. It is funny though because so many of the corporate/political/individual pages are created by employees obviously...

I apologize, but give me a break Drmies. I was actually pretty pumped about being able to contribute to the community since an expert in varied fields, but this is a quite souring experience. Drmies- what was not neutral about the article that I wrote? It simply explained the utility, process, and content of the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.136.10 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral content that doomed the piece included the repeated "generous"-"generous"-"generosity" shout-outs to donors; the repeated use of the ® symbol (forbidden here); and self-lauding phrases like "a wealth of information". That's one reason, frankly, I'm reluctant to send you the prior version, since it strikes me as a poor role model. (That, and the use of copyrighted material.)

"so many of the corporate/political/individual pages are created by employees obviously"? Alas, you are right. That, in fact, is why we are so harsh and precipitate when we spot such conflicts-of-interest.

Believe me: we really are eager to get the help of subject-matter experts here, and I hope your little brush with the buzz saw does not keep you from helping in ways that don't impinge on our COI and copyright policies. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike, thank you again for the kind response. If there were a way to get access to the code I would greatly appreciate it. I will not be re-posting this article myself, as I'm sure it would be a waste of time. I would like the code for future reference on formatting. Regarding the copyrighted material I was in the process of filing the documentation needed for free use per CC-BY-SA 3.0 after the page was deleted (When I uploaded the files I listed that I am the copyright owner and didn't realize that this was not sufficient since it is in an option when you upload. I'm still confused by this to be honest.). I was wondering, is there an acceptable way to have a page made by someone neutral- e.g., could I ask a student who is not involved with the project to create the page? This may be getting into technicalities, but hardly think calling organ donors generous is being non-neutral-- I do agree that there is self-lauding that should not have been included and the user can draw their own opinion as to the value of the content. Thank you again for the educating posts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.136.10 (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Limerick Pogrom

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Limerick Pogrom. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Shout! Factory

I'm not the one who treating the article on Shout! Factory as a catalog. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I never said you were. However, in saying "People do need to know which albums, films, and TV series the company had released. That's why I believe that information should be restored and never be removed" you are advocating that we should serve as a catalog. That kind of reasoning gives the spammers an excuse. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoplophobia and homophobia

Hi Mike I would love to have a discussion/debate with you how I feel that your removing my editing was in fact disruptive as it shows a possible political agenda. If the two words which came into use at approximately the same time are both not listed as "pejorative neologism" then neither should be. I was not trying to be disruptive, rather I felt that the same standard should be applied to both words.

Thanks in advance for what I hope can be very civil debate/discussion

Jeff-mn (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The histories of the two terms are totally different, and must be addressed separately. Cooper, sole coiner of the word "hoplophobia", openly admitted from the git-go that with he was making up a cute pejorative, a term calculated to imply that his political opponents were neurotic if not insane. If you feel the article on the term "homophobia" needs improvement, discuss it on that term's talk page. For all I know, you might be right about that word (though bluntly I doubt it); make your case in the appropriate forum. I do know that that term has a much more complex history, one I myself am not interested in going into; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I have posted to there but also I will post a similar thing here as there is obviusly some very strong emotions from you. You to quote your page are: "... a Wikipedia administrator," they why you didn't follow the guidelines WP even someone as new as me has found? First that was my first edit ever, yet I was told by you that disruptive editing would lead to me being blocked from editing yet I did exactly what WP:Introduction says to do "Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits" Also I read on WP:Bite Dont bite newbies - well after getting that from an admin who is in the top 400 editors I do feel that you bit me. Also it seems you assumed that I was not honestly doing this in good faith as it says an admin should do. WP:DSAN. I was. I do admit rather stupidly I missed the talk page (I see it now) and will propose there. If I could figure out who to complain to a council of admins (surely something like that must exist) regarding my greievnce I would. If this is not where I should post this then please point me to where I should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff-mn (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblock on Slipperywhistle (formerly known as Honeypowerclive)

Hello Orangemike. This is a notice to inform you that I have unblocked a user that you blocked, named User:Slipperywhistle (formerly known as User:Honeypowerclive), as they have promised not to repeat the behaviour that got them blocked. I have indicated to them that if they go back on their promise, they may be blocked indefinitely again. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

COI on white supremacist article

Apparently the subject of Jamie Kelso has returned to "white wash" the article about himself. I reverted their changes (both as an IP and using their named account) for several policy based reasons. Would you mind looking in to it as well? I really don't want to get drawn into a revert war with them and have reverted their changes as much as I plan to. Heiro 02:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkey

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

user cazimir - your note

orangemike - I wasn't using this account but used it for some additions to historic/geographic articles and just through mindlessly continuing, you are right in that a conflict of interest has developed that now looks rather stupid, for which I apologise. I'm afraid that's the process of wanting to be contributive but learning wikipedia, making mistakes, and having two young kids - although none of those excuse. I've done a bit of reading since receiving your user talk note, before replying. A lot of that I should have done when picking up things at the beginning, but life sadly doesn't happen like that.

In reference to the Frink School article, it was reasonable for one of the former students of a small independent school allied to one of the important British sculptors to place it in context, but it now looks a conflict as all the non-notable alumni have disappeared following your edit except a link to what is now me. It would be better with no mentions of prior students at all. I think there is other evidence to support the School's 15 year history, and the alumni are not the reason for its notability in art historic terms, I think.

More importantly, I'm concerned about the objectivity of posts of anything that I've edited that has concerned a link to JE... do you want me to review this myself, or suggest how I liase over this? I think about 80% of my edits are concerning other sculpture or art or heritage related subjects, and just general corrections when I happen to be browsing. On the other items where COI must have existed, I'm fastidious about the objectivity of independent/public domain references...(i.e. some recent additions to the JE page, where the most obvious, blunt conflict exists) but of course even my objectivity will be subjective.

A salutory lesson, but please advise what is best course of action and I'll put some time to it. I'll hopefully be a better editor as a result, if given the chance. You'll have to advise what is best course of action with the user... do I just continue but make well sure I'm not doing anything with close connections, or do I need to end this user account? Please advise...

sorry/kind regards Cazimir (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Alan Wolk

Just wanted to make you aware of a heated battle at Arthur Alan Wolk. See the discussions at BLPN and on the article's talk page. Hopefully, you can intercede. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian

I only removed a part of the header because I thought it was somewhat misleading and irrelevant, but no matter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs)

I'm genuinely puzzled: in what way did you think it was misleading or irrelevant? Most Kickstarter proposals don't generate death threats and "Beat Up The Project Person" games. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, was wondering if you could weigh in on -

Hello! -

I was wondering if you could weigh in on, if you have the time, on inclusion of articles containing critisims as well as accolades of a politician. Your comments on the talk page of Gov Scott Walker were quite good. In this case it is another governor, item 14 Bias on the Talk Page, thanks!Patriot1010 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Hi Mike, I was wondering if you'd be able to comment on User:AccuracyInPosting's continued use of court documents as sources. This seems like a clear violation of WP:OR especially given the contentious nature of this BLP. AccuracyInPosting's continued editing, all with the purpose of presenting Drollinger in a positive light is troubling to me. I'm considering bringing it up at ANI, but thought I'd drop you a line first. --Daniel(talk) 22:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike; I would think the Wiki world would be desirous of utilizing objective, accurate information in the construction of a BLP? Please explain why verifiable court documents are not allowed? Plus could you remove the headers on this BLP -- there as been no discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

John La Fave

Hi MIke, I'm happy to discuss the article with you on the talk page [[4]]. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Was wondering if I could get your take on -

Hi Mike - dealing with a weird one here, an interesting neferious sock/meatpuppeteer:

Sorry for the Alt, but I know the Subject is watching my main account. Was looking for a "sanity" check if this type of situation is "normal" or should get outside intervention.

User A opens a RFC, asking to keep, move or edit/change a constentious sentance.

User A: Remove

User B: Remove (And was WP:Hounded with revert by User D on another article Talk page, corrected by a 3rd party)

User C: Remove

User D: Retain

User E: Retain

User F: Reword to make less contentious - provides an example sentence.

User G: Reword to make less contentious

User B tweaks User F Sentence.

User E: Agrees with re-word edit.

User A: Agrees with re-word edit.

User B: Agrees with re-word edit.

User F: Agrees with re-word edit and asks why User A "Made a new account to just fight this one issue.".

User G: Agrees with re-word edit.

User D: Makes no attempt at compromise.

Per WP:EDITCONCENSUS - the process appears to be an edit is made since we found a compromise.

User B makes the compromised edit to the article. User D reverts stating consensus has not occurred, use talk - but does not make any contributions, says what is wrong etc....

User A, the one who initiated the RFC suddenly turns red (No longer exists) - possible hack - user had no history of abuse/etc..(Is there any way to check for banned/blocked users quickly?)

User B gets a DNS Poison attack, with google redirecting what looks like the Wikipedia page - but its the foundation page. (Unknown to all) Cleans DNS issue and still "kickin"

User E ....suddenly request formal closure, since there is no consensus....which is weird, that user agreed with the tweaked sentence a day before.

So looking for your take - is this situation weird or is it just me? What actions (if any) would you recommend?MrSmith90210 (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked Havenhurstbooks

Hi Mike. I've unblocked User:Havenhurstbooks to allow a change of name - there's nothing whatsoever in their history to suggest that they're actually representing the company "Havenhurst Books", so I'm inclined to believe their explanation that they're a bibliophile who live on Havenhurst. I'm guessing you'll be okay with that; if not, feel free to reblock and excoriate me on my talkpage. All the best, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott Atran COI

The subject has apparently been editing his own article as an IP (64.131.188.170). See this BLP/N thread he started and his edit history. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You made it!

You made my funny stuff page. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yes that is an OM classic - made me laugh too.--ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

How to look for the history of edits of deleted articles.

a) What places are there to check for the history of edits to a deleted article?...

b) For example, ? Where can be found the history of the edits to the deleted article Recovery Is Possible Recovery Is Possible

> Only those with Admins rights are able to access deleted pages. You can email an admin, and request for them to retrieve the information for you. There is no way a non-admin can access these pages. : (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please retrieve deleted Recovery Is Possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don warner saklad (talk • contribs) Thank you !

Please retrieve the revisions "history" of deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Is_Possible

Bill Luckett

I'd be more inclined to restore the pre-gutted version. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fascism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fascism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

BLP Help!

Hey there! You look like just the guy I was looking for! S0 I am new and my first post has recieved some BLP criticism. I believed I made it about as nuetral, fact based and relevant as possible but still recieved a tag today. Any advice is greatly appreciated! I just want to make sure that unbiased, factual pictures are painted of the topics I wish to help build. Topic concerning John Dewey Academy. Troutbum898 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey again. I must say I had asked many others to read and review my post. They had all given a thumbs up and much pain has once again been felt by many at the deletion of it once again. We had some victims all rejoicing last night at the many nods of approval we had received. It is the small victories we take pride in as fighting against victim-blaming (especially amongst minors) and rape/abuse cover up (especially in schools/churches). This is an uphill battle to say the least. We need to come to an agreement on this topic. 1.) How the model of therapy used at a therapeutic school is wrong to even delineate I have a hard time understanding. I said nothing positive or negative about it and cited the published books written by the faculty of JDA promoting these methods. Some people promote Attack/Confrontation Therapy (though never has a single study been done to say it works though many have proven its damaging impact on peoples lives, I could also lead you to sources from the APA citing these facts) some people do not promote or accept it and in the industry it remains very. very controversial. This is why I think it is important for it to be delineated and part of the picture regarding an unbiased encyclopedic portrait of JDA. Either way, I left it up to the reader to decide. Each book I cited even refers to case examples in JDA. This to me seems like an exceptional source. I even had the link open up to the pages that directly reference Attack/Confrontation Therapy. 2.) How rape and abuse at a school for vulnerable teens perpetrated by faculty in an incredible power position can not be included in the full, unbiased story is also hard for me to understand. I only stated that it had happened and even gave the Perp his own voice in defending himself. 100% neutral. Again, I gave a link to an article that refers to the crimes committed. I only stated that these horrific crimes had happened, quoted the Perp in defending himself, gave factual links so readers could investigate on their own and come to their own opinion as to whether it is good, bad or however they choose to interpret the crimes. So where do we go from here? I think a conversation regarding this topic is incredibly important and for every victim past present and future a answer regarding rape/abuse cover-up should be delineated.

You need coffee (or sleep)

on the (non)-block of User:Melicband. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete the crest (rap group) page, can it be restored?

Sorry to ask as it's going back more than a few years, I'm hoping you remember why you deleted the entire page though as now I can't find anything on the group here and information is scarce elsewhere. Can the page please be restored as I'd love to actually know how many albums they've released (if it's mentioned?) and I'd also love an explanation as to why you deleted the page in the first place. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crest_%28rap_group%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.170.244 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It was an article about a band with no credible assertion of notability, consisting of a list of their self-published albums copied off their MySpace page. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)