User talk:Orangemike

Long hair

hello OrangeMike, I edited the new article "long hair"- is it too short? greetings from Munich, Germany garlicboy1969 12:47, April 19th (CET) </nowiki>

Hello

Politics rule has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Castillero Middle School

Hey, I have no idea how to do a wikitable. I left some data on the article. Could anyone who's reading this make the table.

User talk:172.189.204.249

Thank you for experimenting with the page User talk:172.189.204.249 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Changes to Pension re: Chile

Mike - my purpose is not to dispute the changes made in Chile, I had simply moved that reference to the countries section of that page, and I've opened up a new page on the Chilean pension system.

The definition of pension should stay general and not reference any particular country or system. Country-specific changes are occurring constantly.

Okay=

Seems a bit confusing for the causal user but I'll be mindful of that in the future. -Leodmacleod 5:28, 24 Sept 2007 (UTC)

"Murkey Depths" magazine

Here are the UK Google results for Murkey Depths. They don't establish enough notability for an article on the magazine but I thought they should be enough to verify it exists for the list of British magazines in the Science fiction magazine article. I did consider not adding it as there have only been two issues (promo issue zero and issue 1) so far but the list has several magazines with only one issue. I've not edited much in this type of area before, is a separate reference needed and if so is it better from the magazine's website or one of the other sites in order to show it is an actual magazine?

I added it to the list (along with Hub Magazine) because the list stopped at 1977, with a sentence about interzone at the bottom, this seemed to be an incomplete view of this type of magazine in Britain. I have to admit I don't know if there have been any others published between 1977 and 2005 but if I find any I was planning to add them to the list (and also one currently being produced in Ireland once I found the right place in the article for it). If more verification is needed before inclusion let me know so I can include the right information before adding anymore magazines to the article. --Kaly99 (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken to your talk page. (Note that the actual name of the magazine is Murky Depths, not Murkey Depths.)--Orange Mike 13:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Making a page easier to search for

Thanks for the tip, Orangemike. Flash176 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

uh sorry orange dude

uh.. i didn't know this page exestied and im new so i wrote on your user page--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC) uh bottm of page--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

dude dragons need a rewrite i agree but you can look at my opinos therebut come on goerge bush is the best presdint ever man!. hey drop a line. um.. the bush thing was a friendly debate.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (the door mat is your sand box)--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) uh press talk.

I'm a historian, and feel the younger Bush will go down in the rolls of legendary incompetence, corruption and degradation of the Constitution beside Harding, Grant and Buchanan. (All of which, of course, is irrelevant to the article under discussion; I'll look at your comments under Dragon.) --Orange Mike 13:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

your right it is irrelevent. but on the dragons it could be hard to read at the very least the arrticle needs to be sorted and maybe placed under the title commen mythical creatures —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) how do i mak the multi colored boxes with the pictures? to put on the youser page Like: "pic of" computer, this user has a mac"--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are called "userboxes." Read Wikipedia:Userboxes for more. --Orange Mike 05:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you! i don't have time to elaborate but will you help me with something? if yes, watch this blog closely.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I dont understand. I write the lastname, right? So it puts the name in the right letter in the category. If their are two with the same surname, then... it gous authomatically by the name. Plus please understand, categorisation isn't easy. It's not easy to find the people. So all that + adding the name and this confusing thing? I work alone and all this is hard for me. More people should help. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what happens. If you just put in the last name, then only the last name appears in the category list, even if a DEFAULTSORT has been set up to automatically add the whole name. --Orange Mike 21:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA, and thanks for your endorsement in mine! Have fun learning to use the new buttons. Acroterion _(talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You might want to visit the new admin school, if you haven't already by the time you see this. It was very helpful to me. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations man! Here's a t-shirt. :) GlassCobra 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. GlassCobra 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a great job fighting vandals and socks.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Echoing the support of my esteemed colleagues, Congratulations! Remember that socks come in pairs. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your adminship. —Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of your recent edits

Why are you removing so many wikilinks? Not everyone reading these articles is going to have the same educational background (or the same knowledge of English; and most folks are urged to do more wikilinking, not less, when writing articles. --Orange Mike 04:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that anyone who is looking up a specific novel at Wikipedia is bound to know what a novel is. Also while I do realize that not everyone has a high school education I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know what a high school is and actually feels the need to look it up. There really is such a thing as too much linking. It really should be used for specific things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs)

While I wouldn't have put in a couple of these links myself, I figure it does no harm to leave them in. We've all got better things to do with our time. --Orange Mike 04:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive linking drives me batty. However, I'll try and restrain myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Trond Stokke

Hi Orangemike, I've removed your speedy A7 tag from this one. It certainly seems to assert notability and some websearching shows he's more notable that the Speedy criteria. I do see though that the same author created another article that's been repeatedly deleted and now is protected. I'd suggest Afd as a path if you disagree - Peripitus (Talk) 05:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see your point about the speedy. We'll also need to move the article, of course, since titles don't belong in article names. --Orange Mike 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Artintegrated

Help me Hoary is driving me crazy for no reason Artintegrated (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for your comments. I hope things go well with you now being an administrator. My congratulations. RFD (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, congratulations from a second WikiProject Wisconsin member! You've earned the mop, as I have commented in your RfA. I'll let you know if I need help with "cleanup on aisle 13". Royalbroil 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just became an admin too! I didn't want to feel like I was canvassing your support when I posted the last message. WikiProject Wisconsin has two admins in less than one week! I watched your RfA for a while before I decided to run to better understand the process. Royalbroil 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Back

Cheers Mike, and thank you. How's that mop? Enjoying it? It's quite cool for the first few days with the big fat "delete" button hanging over the main page isn't it!!!! If you need any help or advice on anything in the world of admin let me know. Thanks again for your support and kinds words over this, err...., unfortuante incident. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok cool

Ok cool Thanks Mike.. Now I'm starting to get a hang of this wikipedia.

Have a great week to you... --PATRICK RIBBSAETER (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello my name is jlarsgard

Thank you for your advice, this is my first time trying to contribute and im sorry my caps lock got stuck also on a page like this do i start commenting on top or at the bottom Jlarsgard (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Always at the bottom. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Username blocks

Don't forget to leave a talkpage message after blocking usernames - I'm having to re-train myself as well. Acroterion _(talk) 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I use Twinkle, which grew extra buttons and warnings when I got the sysop bit - very useful. For you Luddites, look through WP:WARN; or use {{subst:uw-ublock}} for softblocks and {{subst:uw-uhblock}} for hardblocks. Acroterion _(talk) 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I do have a bizarre memory/Congrats

I have a bit of a prolific memory, and as soon as I first saw your picture in the Wikipedians with images I thought to myself "I saw him on Ben Stein, like, ten years ago." Sure enough, 'tis you. Congrats on the winnings; Stein is a tough cookie. Keegan^talk 06:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As an uppity plebeian, I was particularly proud to wrestle him to an intellectual and psychological tie. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (co-founder and lobbyist, Tennesseans to Impeach Nixon)

I've always enjoyed watching that show. I'd love to watch your episode. I've probably seen it. Royalbroil 06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My chromatic affiliation makes me easy to spot. I'm told it was one of the amusing games for the press at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, kinda like Where's Waldo?. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it! My curiousity has gotten the best of me. Do you wear blaze orange during Wisconsin's deer hunting season or do you stick with the bright orange? Royalbroil 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wear whatever orange garb I can find in my full-figured sizes. Much hunting gear, of course, is too heavy for indoor wear. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Antiquorum Auctoneers

"In the meantime, do not remove a tag such as or unless you are also answering the query. "

I did. Re the two tags you restored:

1. Geneva is now a link to the Geneva (city, Switzerland) page. If you think that this needs to say Geneva, Swizterland - you may be right, but that's another matter. I thought that in a hypertext system a link is sufficient, ymmv - whatever wiki policy is is fine. If you merely think the "Geneva, Swizterland" is better as a matter of style, might I suggest that you make such edits yourself? That's what collaborative writing is about. I won't be hurt - honest!

2. Re the ten million dollar watch, as I wrote on the Talk Page, the source for that is the same as the source given for every other fact in the opening - which is sourced at the end of the opening. Why this one fact of twenty or so was singled out as unsourced I have no idea. Plus sourcing for paragraphs is a standard convention. While I appreciate your helpfulness, if a tag is removed and you don't understand why, it probably is a good idea to check the Talk Page. If people don't check them, other people won't use them. (As a coder I have a big thing about creating and using comments.)

I'll leave you a day or three to remove the tags yourself or to contact me if you think there is still a problem, otherwise I'll remove them again, as they now seem to be mis-leading. Umptious (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

JFP

I'm not sure that source [1] you just placed is usable. It takes me to an Off Campus Access page that requires me to input a UWM ID and my last name. So unless you're student or faculty there with a UWM ID, you can't use that page. Your thoughts? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the best I had (I are a UWM student). The same information appears in the hardcopy 45th (2007) edition of Ulrich's Periodicals Directory on page 12,350, if you wanna convert that into a footnote instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jackson Free Press

Hi. I am assuming that you made this revert because the source was the website of the subject of the article, however I've reverted back as the information seems to be within the guidelines of WP:SELFPUB. If you do not agree, I am open to discussion. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

clause 3 (I think) of WP:SELFPUB: "it is not unduly self-serving"! Newspapers live and die by circulation figures. This (admittedly COI) editor has provided no source for his claims. Please revert your revert. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is only a difference of 2,000 between the two sources. I don't think that is unduly, especially since the source you reverted to doesn't work. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

COI editor's claim is 13% higher; that's statistical significance in my textbooks. But yeah, the ref should be changed to a hardcopy reference (I provided the details on the talk page). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading that. Well, it appears that it is all a matter of opinion (what isn't, right?). I would say that a 2,000 difference isn't really "unduly". If it were claiming hundreds of thousands, probably would be unduly. But 2,000 seems like such a minuscule amount. I have searched all over for a better source, but cannot find one. I'd like to think that the JFP isn't "lying" about their number, who knows, I guess. What do you purpose at this point (without saying to revert my edit)? I'd hate to open an RfC for this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep coming back to "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Ulrich's qualifies; "this is what we claim on our website" doesn't. Certainly nobody wants a revert war here. I'd say use the published source, or delete any figures whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ulrich source does not work. I get a message saying "Due to software licensing restrictions, copyright limits and other contractual arrangements, you must be authenticated as a UWM student, staff or faculty member in order to access this library resource from your current location. Please sign in with the form below.". - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I know; that's why, if we revert, we should use the hardcopy version of Ulrich's, which I verified a few minutes ago. (See previous item on this page.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

First and foremost, Happy Thanksgiving.

In response to the comment that you left on my page yesterday, I'm not prone to disagree with you. Any scheme which defines human complexion based on the archetype of color gradients is often subjective given the variability of interpretation. Hence, such terms are always elastic since it is never a description of something literally observed. It is clear however, that regardless people are either identified and/or choose to identify under such labels. Within that context, you either have an opinion on it or not, but no amount of circular reasoning would be able to definitively prove you wrong given the noted subjectivity involved in describing this variability.

What is important is self-identification and biogeographic ancestry/population relationships (note: the early indigenous populations of the Nile valley for instance weren't situated anywhere near native American populations of the same era). One would also indeed be supporting a false dichotomy as well, when subscribing to such modern and fixated terms as "Black Africa/n", yet arbitrary exclude certain populations with similar ancestry to those whom which it is applied. That's basically the crux of that in my opinion.Taharqa (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch!

Hey, thanks for stopping my bot... I'm not 100% sure what went wrong there... I'll have a look at it, and iron it out, however... Thanks, again :) SQL^{Query me!} 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are awfully damn impatient

Give a guy fifteen minutes to add some categories, OK? Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite the coarse language above, I'm inclined to agree that an ambassador representing his country is notable in the case of Kingdon Gould, Jr. Please take it up at AfD if you disagree. Royalbroil 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna blame the guy for getting a little honked off; he just forgot to post a hangon tag. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Space opera

Hey, if you made more edits to this article than almost anyone, so let me pose this question to you: An anonymous user just added (I should say readded) Stargate SG1 to the television list, and I'm not sure if I should revert. There has been no discussion on the talk page about the show, but it was deleted from the list several months ago---by another anon, as it happens. So, to revert or not to revert? I have trouble with defining Stargate as space opera---it seems more like military science fiction to me---but, I am hardly an expert. It was on the tv list for a long time, with no complaint. So, what do you think? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not space opera by any standard I can imagine; revert it. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Imperato

the links to most of the references led to the home page of sites not articles related to the candidate for example the home page of the washington times or Green Party. There is clearly no mention of him on either page. the Boca news links didn't work. I thought it clear if a reference link didn't work it can't be a reference because there is no way to verify info. secondly Imperato is not be appearing on the ballot for any green primaries. The candidate lists in several states have already been turned in and highly publicied. The candidate forum hosted by Independent green party has nothing to due with green party. party is seperate from national green party (national party has own state affiliate). While major changes should be disscused on talk pages I started without a plan to edit so much but all of my edits are factual and can be verified through a google search if the spellings bad I'm sorry, dealing with a broken thumb, In future i will disscuss all major edits on talk page Highground79 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source does not have to have an internet link. As long as it has the proper kind of information (publication, date, page, etc.) a reference is not invalid just because it's not verifiable online. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to put business section on bottom of page and was trying to fix when I got your message Highground79 (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

I came accross an article you had edited which led me to your user page...I'm your neighbor to the west in Brookfield. Also going to apply for 2008 DNC Convention Delegate in Denver. Any tips? I think i saw you on Win Ben Stein's Money, also. Cheers Shawn (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken to e-mail. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

grats

We've had our differences, and I'm sure you know I opposed your RFA, but it passed anyway. Congrats, and use the tools well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kind of ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I hope to make myself worthy of the trust placed in me. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Claud "Rick" Koerber

I've kind-of been keeping tabs on User:Bumblebee91 and all of the Franklin Squires articles that the user has been creating. Upon checking their contributions, I discovered this article, and I am very skeptical of its encyclopedic merit. I am considering sending the article to AFD, especially since it seems that the user that created it may have a conflict of interest or even be "Rick Koerber" himself. What are your thoughts on the matter? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claud "Rick" Koerber. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Digging through page histories, I've stumbled across some user accounts that have remarkably similar contributions:

Rick koerber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jerhiah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Equity Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tennessee10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Timcharper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bumblebee91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of these accounts' primary contributions have been to articles that were about Claud Koerber or his companies, products, or services. In searching, I also found Free Capitalist Project; which was originally created by User:Rick koerber. It appears to me, to be promotional in nature and to lack good primary sources, much like the other articles we've been looking at. I'm not really sure what to do about all of the users, but do you think I should add the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claud "Rick" Koerber? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FranklinSquires page

Thank you for your comments. My attempt to recreate the FranklinSquires page after it had been speedily deleted was not to circumvent your efforts. It was an attempt to comply with your suggestions. I made a few changes to the page and then created it again thinking I had resolved its issues. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn its rules.

Also, I have made more changes to the once again deleted FranklinSquires page. I want to post these changes to see if I have resolved its issues but have been warned by user loath that a new posting under that page name will lead to the blocking of my account. How can I learn to write a credible Wikipedia page if I only have a few attempts to write one before being threatened to block my account? Bumblebee91 Bumblebee91 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Film Guides

Greetings, I concur that all entries are not worthy of Wik. inclusion. My intent re Karen Black page was I did feel it noteworthy to supply her debut film info as it was also the beginning of splatter/gore camp Director Herschell Gordon Lewis's career. He is noted in a Wik. page but the two facts are not linked together in the KB page.. Before I could return and add to the page, it had been flagged & removed. Regards, Jangod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangod (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Shank Hall

I copied the deleted the Shank Hall article to my sandbox. I cleaned, expanded and sourced it. I live just north of the Milwaukee TV/radio markets, but I have heard of the hall from numerous national acts that have appeared at the venue. It is one of the few music venues that I have heard of in Milwaukee. Would you review the article in my sandbox? Please comment on my talk page about the notability of hall as asserted in the article. Also, without considering the citations in the draft, state your general impression about the notability of the hall from someone who lives in its county. If you saw this article in new articles, what would your reaction be? Thanks! Royalbroil 04:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm going to leave the article deleted then. I will temporarily restore the article, paste in my edits, and delete it. That way if it does become more notable in the future, a better version can be restored. Royalbroil 15:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already restored the article, pasted my edits, and deleted the article. You can undelete it if you want. I thought that it probably was notable enough or I wouldn't have spend the time researching. The outcome of the research showed that it had marginal notability IMHO. I tend a bit more inclusionalist than you do (and probably a bit more inclusionalist than most). Royalbroil 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Reverts of edits to Istrian Exodus

Okay, thanks. I'm keeping a lookout for User:LEO, who always edits from a range of IPs, so as a precaution, I'm reverting any IP edits to Istrian Exodus. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due sympathy to the real problems these articles are having from vandals, etc., we can't do that; it's unfair to legitimate IP editors. If they were bad edits, then clarify why they are bad, and put that in your summary; this is not the kind of thing we can do by simple knee-jerk reversion. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the reverts in question have been explained thoroughly on the talkpage of the article. The matter has been discussed and discussed for almost a month now, with the IP taking little notice, his (few) responses were more alike to declarations of personal POV (in Italian), than actual arguments. I just think everyone's fed up with trying to get this guy to talk and modify his POV.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Better sourcing for A Small Domain

Hi Orangemike, I just noticed the tag you put on A Small Domain. I was wondering do you think the sources used are bad (I know 1 is imdb...), or just that it needs more sources, or are there specific aspects of the article you think need sourcing? I've just created it so will be working on it more. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise that in many cases IMDb is not reliable. There's been a lot of discussion about it's use as a source. It was my understanding that it was considered more acceptable when it comes to hard facts (for example the awards section). It was also my understanding, (I could be completely wrong) that it was acceptable in an underdeveloped article as a source for non-controversial facts. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe in the importance of verifiability and reliable sources, but I think that for the time it takes me to chase up individual sources for each award, that the IMDb awards page is sufficient. By the time an article gets towards GA or FA, I would expect IMDb not to turn up in the references at all. Other information in the article I got from an interview with the director. When you say it lacks credibility (sorry if I'm being slow here...) are you taking about demonstration of notability, or verifiability? --BelovedFreak 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambassador

All politicians are considered notable. This came up recently on another ambassador-page. Apparently this is covered under WP:NOTE, which until recently I didnt know. Jose João (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing that covers this in WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not my assertion. I'll find the diff - another user made this point - in a second. Jose João (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, Thomas.macmillan: [2] Jose João (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Macmillan argues that all ambassadors are inherently notable under WP:BIO, as they qualify as politicians who have held international office. But is that what is meant by "held international office"? I think of the latter as meaning former officials of the United Nations or League of Nations. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding my two cents on this, I would ask then, what are the notability guidelines for ambassadors beyond the baseline for every person? I believe that by adding the "international" part in the guidelines they are addressing ambassadors. The reason why we don't have more information on certain ambassadors is not because of their lack of notability, but because of systematic bias. Angola, as a Lusophone and African country, generally is undercovered in the English press, therefore creating gaps. I am going to delete your notability tag because of the reasons stated above and I hope this won't degenerate into an edit war.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Steups

Hey Orange one!

Just wanted to let you know that I removed your CSD tag on Steups in favor of transwikiing it to Wiktionary. I've since retagged it for deletion under A5. Sorry for the trouble! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 07:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

oak-hickory forest

Hi Mike. I'm not sure, but I believe that Oak-Hickory Forest is a proper noun as it describes a geographic region (i.e., Midwest), and a forest ecology type indegenous to North America. I have no preference either way; will defer to your greater experience, but you'll have to go back and fix my over zealous correction.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In the scientific literature, a forest ecology type such as this is not capitalized. There is no such place as "The Oak-Hickory Forest" in the sense that there is, say, Sherwood Forest. These are typologies, and as such are not capitalized. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Headwaters Incorporated

Mike, I did not delete the article as non-notable, but as blatant advertising. I would happy to place the deleted material into someone's userspace if they are interested in reworking it so that it is not advertising, but I am not willing to restore it to article space in its current condition. I do appreciate your follow-up, thanks for your hard work. Pastordavid (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. Done. And thanks for the kind words about my little one. Truly the greatest joy I've ever experienced. Pastordavid (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Information for the site administrator: Orange Mike

I followed the suggestions by decomposing wikipedia article under my articles. This article is not a guide or mauel work. It outlines in the clearest possible terms the definitions of quality defects found in lenticular productions. Bernard SOULIER (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Information N°2 for the site administrator: Orange Mike

I am a new entrant, and I believe sincerely bring something positive to wikipedia and its users. I worked very hard to write this article and I feel assaulted from all sides. I do not understand your hard work and your execution speed, I have the feeling of being something wrong? Why is this censorship, I have no rational explanation, clear and precise. Bernard SOULIER (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your articles, in addition to being a mixture of technical terminology and flawed translation, seem to be technical treatises, a species of original research, which has no place for it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for articles such as this which are more suitable for a journal or textbook. Ours is an encyclopedia in the modern sense, not in the sense of the great 18th-century French and Scotch Encyclopedists, whose works did include such treatises. I urge you instead to apply your technical knowledge to the improvement of this encyclopedia's myriad articles on topics where you have expertise which can lend clarity and accuracy to other editors' work. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that it is irremediably OR/Howto. I deprodded it to give Bernard the chance to remedy the faults you've identified. Let's give him some time to fix things. If it's still a problem in a week or so, I'll send it to AfD. Best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep thinking the guy's putting a lotta work into this; but I don't see anything in there that's got a place here in Wikipedia. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So do I, for his sake, but I have the feeling that it will turn out to be me that's wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Exit (film)

I'm not sure how or why my contretemps with Indiecat over the article Last Exit (film) came to your attention, but, since I decided to step back and seek advice from other editors/admins before doing anything else, I appreciate your stepping in with the COI template and additional remarks on Indiecat's Talk page. If you have any advice on how I could have handled this better, I'm all ears. Also: I used to live in Milwaukee (1991-1998) and went to Renaissance all the time, and I was also an active, year-round volunteer with the late, lamented Planned Parenthood Book Sale at the fairgrounds, so I must have seen you there. How's Renaissance doing these days? Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Exit

Dear orangeMike, Curiosly, suddenly there is another user, it seems a bit suspect. I am also very interested how this came to your attention. I appreciate all contructive additions to the wiki infon. But I dont see how blogs cannot be linked, its not written specifically anywhere. Please help me here. We really dont understand the motivations, and we clearly have no COI. thank you. sincerely, catrina madsen aka Indiecat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiecat (talk • contribs)

Dear OrangeMike, you have admitted to me Skewedshelf has asked you to step in. So he lied when he says he didnt know how you came? Look, it very easy to pick on a small article like this. Do a google on Last Exit movie and you will find a mountain of information regarding this underground movie, so a wiki entry is manditory. Honestly I do not understand this, please please I dont want a reverb war. Its not worth any of our time, is it? sincerely Indiecat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiecat (talk • contribs)

1) Skewedshelf asked another experienced editor for advice and help, and I noticed the request for help, so I stepped in; never heard of the guy before that. Please assume good faith: it's one of the underlying principles of this project. 2) I monitor over 2500 articles; I'm not picking on you, I'm just holding this article to the same standards I do Ron Paul or Frank Zappa or Racism or General Mitchell International Airport! These standards include rules on notability; on verifiability; on reliable sources; and on conflicts of interest. If skewed and I sound alike, it is because we're trying to work from the same rulebook (as you are expected to). 3) If there is information out there about this film, from reliable sources, then please incorporate it into the article! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but from outside it at least looked very strange and arranged , it looks like Skewed had a vendetta on this article, he had not explained to me why only this cult item he focuses on as of yet. But ok he does I accept.

I still hold that the links are notable. Do a google of the little movie and you will see that there is plenty of sources outhere, so why cant you post positive contributions too? and not just delete and remove valuable wiki info. To me thats not fair treatment at all. Give and take is what this project is about.

Im an open minded girl, but still smell this is very negative contribution, certainly ONLY deleting and not adding notable in replace.

sincerely, Indiecat Indiecat (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I am attempting to have a dialog on notability, however that is not possible if you censor talk pages (including your own) where I attempt to talk to the people who revert the edits. I feel that clearly shows an unwillingness to take part in dialog on your part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.70.18 (talk • contribs)

There is a rough consensus that most secondary schools are ipso facto notable; and the three schools I saw you editing on would meet the requirements anyway. In the meantime, your edit summaries contained false assumptions ("your school" etc.) which constituted tacit insults. Please refrain from such language, and we can discuss matters of substance instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, providing such at the start of the issue would have saved a lot of time and edits. I shall travel along it to discuss there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.70.18 (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppets used for redirection

I saw you reverting User:Localrules. Looks like he's using multiple socks. See Special:Contributions/Tiredthink, Special:Contributions/Errorminor, Special:Contributions/Proofroads, Special:Contributions/Groupshear, Special:Contributions/Offerdream, and I suspect he is a sock of User:Alertother who is now blocked. Pagrashtak 15:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I just wanted to alert you to the discussion you started on my talk page, User_talk:KnowledgeOfSelf#Special:Contributions.2FLocalrules in case you had anything else to add. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this user is still creating socks—Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Errorminor (2nd) Pagrashtak 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of help

I appreciate your note to me--was there something in particular that I had posted that inspired you to reply to me?

I was going to get involved in editing the Holocaust page, but that is apparently a hotbed of dissension! I'll instead focus on some peripheral Holocaust topics that are less volatile.

I'm sorry you lost your grad school funding--there are many schools out there that will provide fellowships if you can move to where they are.

Grumpy otter 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You posted a query somewhere about footnote formatting; I'm pretty good at that now. As far as school: I am a middle-aged homeowner and civil servant, whose wife works at the same U (UW-Milwaukee); there is absolutely zero chance of my picking up and moving at my age, in order to become a 60-year-old newly-minted Ph.D. in a post-Reaganomics America.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay--I am trying to add a footnote to the Sobibor extermination camp article, which currently has none. My query has been answered elsewhere, but not well. I cannot tell what I need to add to the notes section to make the citation show up properly. If you could help me out.... I added the first paragraph of the main text of the article that I would like to cite. I got the info from an ARC website, which seems to be a reliable site. At the end of the paragraph, I typed < ref > webaddress </ ref> (of course without the spaces), and the footnote appeared. But if you click on it, it goes nowhere. I don't know what I need to add in the "notes" section to make it work. Thanks!

There is a separate issue--the webaddress I am trying to cite has been blacklisted (they've experienced much vandalism), so I can cite it simply by author and title. Still need to know how! Grumpy otter 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It should look like this (roughly): <ref>[http://www.sampleurl.de/Sobibor Schreklichgeist, August. "Sobibor and the Cultural Context," in ''Festgeschrift für Ole Jonson'', ed. by Baltazar Diogratia. Berlin:Gedankenexperimentpresse, 1991.]</ref> We're pretty freeform about footnote format. The single square bracket, followed by the URL, followed by a single space, followed by the text you wish to display, followed by a closing single square, bracket, should do the job. If you don't have a non-blacklisted URL, then do the same, but omit the square brackets and the URL. The <reference> tag down by notes should then put the note in the table with the text you provided. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! (More on my talk page...) Grumpy otter 11:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And now--how the heck do you search for help topics? I requested that the website be un-blacklisted, but apparently I wasn't logged in at the time, and now I can't find the stupid thing again. I've found this to be a problem generally--if I want to get to the help desk, I have to go through "my contributions." Searches just take me to articles about help desks! Grumpy otter 11:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to this at User talk:Grumpy otter#Reference problem. PrimeHunter 14:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Roche/Notability

Understood, and thank you for your swift response. Basilides/"ούκ ών θεός" 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SRI

I undid this[3] edit you made at Socially_responsible_investing. I have no clue what was going on, but whatever you were trying to do, it didn't work. Matchups 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Monogenic system

My intended audience for the article was people who are interested in Physics. The general audience may feel bored about the article since it's only about the classification of different physical systems. However, I'll think about how to make the introduction more interesting. Thanks for your opinion. If you have any suggestion, please don't hesitate to let me know. --Thurth 06:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Feminism

You need to revert other opinions and questions as well then, other wise your edits appear biased.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin

I put in a request for temporary semi-protection of this redirect since a group of IPs seem intent on reverting it back to the Dab against consensus without discussing. This is becoming vandalism and IMHO - we need to protect from 3RR violations. I've consulted with PaddyM as well on this. master son^{T - C} 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

the page has been fully protected: (see [4]

for details  — master son^{T - C} 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Saward

OrangeMike: I see you have just added a notability tag for Michael Saward.

Michael Saward's notability is his contribution to late twentieth-century mainstream Christian hymnody. His hymn "Christ triumphant" is well-known across mainstream Christian denominations in English-speaking nations across the world. (He himself is an Anglican priest, and was for many years a canon of St. Paul's Cathedral, London.)

I would suggest that he well-deserving of being notable in accordance of Wikipedia terms of reference. (I've seen various far less notable hymnwriters in Wikipedia.)

Could I ask you to undo the notability question, please? Feline Hymnic 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Rick Koerber Page

According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Ponzi scheme, whether or not it is a "technical term" spreads the "titillating claims" about Koerber. "Securities laws" is the proper usage for the sentence according to Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.219.132 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

James Leith

HI, you are correct, that is not the right disambiguation, but I was not aware at the time that there was another James Leith in the British Army with a Wikipedia article, because the page did not have at the top

For other people named James Leith, see James Leith (disambiguation).

The problem I had with James Leith (Peninsular War) as a title is that "Peninsular War" is not a helpful description of the person (he was not after all, a peninsular war). I suggest that the article be moved to James Leith (1763-1845) or even James Leith (Peninsula War officer) instead with clear links shown on the associated disambiguation page. Apologies for the misunderstanding.--Jackyd101 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

If you get a chance, review my RfA? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have explained that I've valued the contributions I've seen from you and would appreciate your thoughts on my RfA - you're right - that totally looks like canvassing. My bad! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

admin powers, activate!

form of ... history-fixer! Orangemike, in the shifting article names for List of organizations for women writers, somehow the history is now attached to List of organizations for female writers, and the talk page is with women, or maybe I've got it backwards, but I think you get my drift. There is confusion in them thar articles. O great and powerful administrator, help? --Lquilter 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have sufficiently skilled Wiki fu to do this one. Neither page has a talk page attached at present. You are probably gonna have to take this to the Wikipedia help desk. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar

Aw, you're no fun. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just kidding, by the way. I wonder where Dreadstar is lately. He's been offline for a while. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton School

Hello, I just created a stub for a high school here in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada but I made a minor error with the school name. Instead of reading "Sir John A. MacDonald Secondary School (Hamilton)" it should read instead: Sir John A. Macdonald Secondary School (Hamilton)"....small "d" in the "Macdonald". Is there anyway that I can correct this? Thanks. Nhl4hamilton 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your assistance. Greatly appreciated! Nhl4hamilton 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

TheorySpark

Do you have some kind of personal or business connection with this firm? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did however try to make it a plain informational page like many others without any advertising. How best would I post a purely informational page about TheorySpark? There are many others like it that seem to be allowed. -- Blandish 08:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Under our standards regarding conflicts of interest, you should not post anything about TheorySpark or any of its products. If this company or these products are notable, then disinterested third parties should be willing to write about them. Instead, every edit you have made has been about this company and its products. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Salt lane incinerator notability

Hi Mike, I am in the process of improving article related to waste management in the UK, this is the reason for the creation of this article. It has 3 verifiable, independent references from local authorities, major waste companies and waste news links. It is a proposed facility, however the article makes no attempt to predict the future of this plant. I believe a huge incineration facility is notable for both local residents, the wider waste management industry and also on an environmental basis related to the carbon emissions from such a plant.--Alex Marshall 16:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But is this individual facility worthy of its own article, or should there be instead a single article on such major facilities in the U.K.? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My views would be yes, as per the above comments.

1. Carbon emissions from the combustion of 240,000 tonnes per annum of waste will be huge
2. Waste facilities are often contraversial and are of particular interest to local residents
3. In the waste management industry this project is of note due to its size and location and the fact it is proposed to treat the waste for an entire city and encompassing two large local authorities

--Alex Marshall 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Shady Mozart pieces

Don't worry about it; it was mostly my fault. I wasted everyone's time by putting in one uncivil comment. Sorry! :( --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Thanks for the cleanup of Fang's vandalism...(whup! Just kidding, Fang!! - it was very funny!), and a bit of a belated congrats on your successful RfA, man - well deserved! (Fang was my Admin Coach, btw...a very good one too..!) Dreadstar † 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to be kinda grumpy about third-party changes to user pages. (And thanks for the congrats; I hope I'm proving worthy of the noble tools.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the same way, I appreciate the protection...please feel free to continue your watch - it's good to have friends keeping an eye out for you. As for Fang, well, she can vandalize my page anytime..(makes me feel kinda special..and if you revert, OrangeMike, well, that makes it even better..just don't edit war over me..lol...;) Thanks, both of you. And OrangeMike, I'm sure you'll do great. Let me know if you ever need help with anything. Dreadstar † 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: EC Music

I gave the user the level 2 warning right away; because he created two articles advertising for IEC and both were copied from here. There is still one remaining IEC - International Entertainment Corporation. The text is also copied from the url I just mentioned; and seems to be blatant advertisement for the same company. There's already a speedy deletion tag placed by Kkmurray because of CSD G12 (I think it also qualifies for G11). Regards User Doe _☻T ^☼C 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Edit And concerning EC Music...well I edited the article a bit before I saw the two articles with copyvio content. It didn't look like advertisement to me at that moment. User Doe _☻T ^☼C 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development

Hello Orange Mike. The above page has been deleted and protected from creation. It is clear that this page will need to be scrapped and completely rewritten. What process is necessary for this page to be recreated or edited in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.251.56 (talk • contribs)

For starters, we would need information that was not taken straight off the Office's website. More to the point, we would need some hint that the office was in any way notable. With all due respect to the many fine folks who work in them, most government agencies like this (I work for one myself) are simply not notable. No indication whatsoever has been shown that this agency is notable; thus, if the article were recreated, even with different wording, it would in my opinion qualify for speedy deletion as not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (AFSCME Council 24, Local 91)

Thanks for the quick response, OrangeMike

I propose to create a page that is easily recognizable as a noteworthy and encyclopedic material. For example, the OSHPD controls and regulates the entire ability for a hospital to be built anywhere in California. OSHPD's FDD reviews and inspects health facility construction projects valued in excess of $8 billion. Due to the developments of Senate Bill 1952, all hospitals in the state are now required to meet seismic resistance standards in an earthquake. This has caused nearly 45% of all California Hospitals to make $4.3 billion in retrofitting construction and often the demolition and reconstruction of the entire hospital campus. Etc. etc. Thank you for considering this topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.251.56 (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick request...

Can you take a look at this ([[5]]) and tell me if you agree with me that it should be blanked and redirected to Anti-Americanism? Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it; it's a partisan rant, and thus not eligible for a speedy; but I'd say just AfD it for POV. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pit Fighter (film)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pit Fighter (film), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pit Fighter (film). Thank you. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fyne Times. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sting_au Talk 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Llama travel

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Llama travel, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Llama travel is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Llama travel, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Feminist science fiction

It is a non-sequiter and I agree, grad schoolish attempts to make Frankenstein into feminist scifi by asserting it's about male reproduction is a bit of a stretch. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad we can agree on that issue. I'm certain that a thesis could be written full of speculation about Frankenstein as a fictional study of a male's efforts to avoid messy human reproduction with females; but it's not appropriate in the article where it was put. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think she was only trying to tell a story about how messy technology can get. I can get behind the notion it was an act of feminism for her to write it, but not that there's much meaningful support she wrote a work of feminist science fiction. I was ok with it in the article, clumsy as it was, because I understand the thinking behind it but I'm ok with it having been rm'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

compasspoint.org

I noticed your answer on the help desk. I think it would be useful for someone who can speak "officially" for Wikipedia, to tell http://www.compasspoint.org/ about Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully they won't continue to encourage people to treat Wikipedia like a free advertizing service. Astronaut (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Esperanto task force!

Thank you for joining the Esperanto task force! I have already tagged and assessed (to the best of my ability) all of the articles in Category:Esperanto (feel free to assess them yourself and change the rankings as you see appropriate). However, there is a problem with the template (Template:WP conlangs): it does not automatically file articles into "Category:Esperanto task force articles" and its subcategories. I am sure this is because of a problem with the source coding, which is simply a modified version of an identically-functioning tag from WikiProject Football/USA and Canada task force. I am not familiar enough with the coding to resolve this problem myself, and I would greatly appreciate help in fixing it. Thanks! TFCforever (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Studio707 / User talk:Studio707

Do you think you could let this user create a new account? User still has a bit to learn but can't get far without a new account or a username change. Gimmetrow 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike! I'd like to second Gimmetrow's request. I think the user has the potential to edit constructively but need some guidance. I see that Wikidemo has already offered to help the user get some of their articles into compliance and I am willing to help as well. While I have some reservation about articles like Meteor Vineyards, the articles on Coombsville and Dawnine Dyer are quite useful and encyclopedic. This not to mention the potential benefit of images that could become available if the licensing issues are worked out. I think we've seen some typical "newbie" mistakes due to simply a lack of awareness about our policies regarding COI and advert-like writing. But I am optimistic that with some help the user could edit in compliance. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned in part because I get the impression that Hollyhp is their "independent" hired writer, and that editor has been working on many of the questionable articles. I fear they still really just don't get it. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concern and believe me, if you wanted to dive through my edit history you will see that I'm not one to take spam and advert wine articles lightly. Some would say (and have actually) that I'm little too hard on winery articles because of that. But I have a firm focus on the encyclopedic mission of the project and I do see potential in what this editor could offer-especially with the images. I think at the core of the issue is a fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is about and agree that they currently don't "get it". But rather than turn them away I'd like to see what we could do with experiences editors helping them out to try and produce some worthwhile articles. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much what Agne said. They seem to have specialist knowledge in the field, and potentially also have images if we can clear up the licensing questions. I would like to see them unblocked but with some restrictions. My main ideas are 1) username changed at WP:CHU, 2) talk-page only to begin with for wine articles. Gimmetrow 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "they" for Wikipedia purposes; if a new editing account is created, it will need to be an individual human being, not a company name or other role account. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a gender-neutral "they" in my text, not an approval of a group editing account. Gimmetrow 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Gimmetrow's ideas are good with the exception of the scope of #2. Rather then restricting editing on all wine related articles how about just the to the ones that are directly about their clients. Per the WP:COI policy, this seems very reasonable and in talking with this editor, I think this is something that they can abide by. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can they and their employees/contractors be relied upon to lay off articles on their other clients? Associations, local booster club(s), the Stone family (apparently), etc., etc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. In talking with the editor, I think they thought they were actually editing in compliance with having a different company edit on behalf of their clients rather than edit with their conflict of interest. I talked about our COI policy and the MyWikiBiz stuff and explained the some appropriate behaviors like using the talk page or creating a subpage on their user page and asking for independent editors' assistance in moving constructive materials to the mainspace. While I'm awaiting a reply about whether I could forward you these emails, I do have confidence that the editor realizes their mistake and are starting to "get it" now. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this editor turns out to be worth the trouble you've gone through for him/her. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

:) Thank you considering the request. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP is not blocked now. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fight Promoter University

I pretty much thought that there would be a possibility that this article may be speedied, so I waited so I could do a . I am simply a big boxing fan and have heard about fight promotion university. It should pass the google test and be an interesting article for those interested in it. It can be expanded and is known in the industry. Thanks and looking for any contribution you may want to put on. Armyguy11 (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing one's own work

Mike. Thanks for the explanation. Before asking the next question, as tonality of communication is lost in this medium, I must preface with the statement that I am simply seeking to understand the wiki mindset, not trying to be argumentative, and will graciously accept any explanation. That said... It seems, then, that wikipedia does not want experts themselves in any given field to contribute to articles, only the 3rd party readers of other expert's work? I understand the COI, so in an effort to not be self-promoting, I am content to contribute and try to cite another of my contemporaries that agrees with me, but that seems counter-productive. If John Piper himself were to write on Christian Hedonism, the theology that Piper himself invented, would the wikipedia community object? And if he were to contribute to that article, who else would Piper cite aside from his own works? This is paradoxical, is it not? Nrcjersey (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"tonality of communication is lost in this medium" - Amen to that, brother! If Piper's work meets our standards of notability (I'm a smidgen skeptical), then there should be others writing about his concepts, and their work should be cited by those wishing to improve the article; Piper would be advised to restrict himself to comments on the article's talk page explaining his point of view on matters in which he feels the article is wrong/misleading. Experts in a field should be working on improving our coverage of the topics in which they have expertise (which can normally be done without self-promotion), leaving the discussion of their own work to disinterested third parties. Wikipedia has been so incessantly plagued by self-promoters, publicists and spin doctors that I fear we have become rather hardnosed and cynical about anything that reeks shows even the tiniest whiff of spam and self-interest. Whenever the restraints chafe, I think of it as a useful exercise in humility; others from different spiritual traditions may not value humility so highly. :) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely the best, and honest, answer I have received yet. Thank you. I will be careful not to "reek of spam and self-interest" as I contribute. You are correct, there is a level of humility in not citing one's own work. thank you Nrcjersey (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tagging Jean-Louis Triaud

While I appreciate your efficiency, the speed at which you are tagging new articles for speedy deletion gives an unthorough impression. You need to look at the provided sources, and may well look into the "What links here" before you deem a subject below notability threshold. Have a mellow day, MURGH ^disc. 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I do try to do the things you advise; but never hurts to be reminded to stop and smell the context. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing it that way. MURGH ^disc. 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Conservation Geoportal

the article clearly implies importance from the sponsorship and description. I can not see why you tagged it for speedy deletion as A7 non notable. DGG (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To me it looks like one of those marvelous ideas that may not go anywhere if the funding doesn't show up and stay steady. Until it's a lot more established and fully operational, I think articles about it belong on Wikinews, not here. It's premature, like a garage band that swears they're gonna get a major label deal soon. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Database to ontology mapping

Ok I will try. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugz (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for responding about the proposed merger of the articles about Madison & Janesville-towns and cities. Having lived in La Crosse for years I have seen how the cities of Onalaska & La Crosse get involved with boundary disputes and other squabbles with the towns especially the city of La Crosse with the town of Campbell (French Island). Also the cities of Onalaska & La Crosse got into it over annexing parts of Valley View Mall. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those annoying quirks of local customs that outsiders get wrong. I'll bet the person proposing merger was a flatlander! (Minnesotans and Iowans would be too polite, and Youpers wouldn't care.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my user page

I suppose I ought to be flattered by the vandalism, but I honestly just feel underwhelmed. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stratocracy

was not an appropriate article to tag for speedy deletion -- it was neither patent nonsense nor "something somebody made up in class last night", as a simple web search will indicate. Thanks, Christopher Parham (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct; I didn't recognize the truncated strategos in the root, especially with the rather ineptly-worded definition. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89.

Currently a user is deleting all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, a contemporaneous source of information for 19th c. Americans much as Giorgio Vasari's encyclopedia is for 16th c. Italian artists. That is to say, it's not just some random website. Talking to the user produces this kind of response to others, so I've just left a brief note. I hope I may be spared any personal contact with this user. The damage being done is not minor. I'm struggling to insert the following footnote in the few little articles I watch: "Dates and other biographical information in this article are drawn from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89." The website with on-line text is spam-blocked here (no one need explain that to me, please). I am posting here because the user's boilerplate edit summary is "clean up, & remove link see WP:AN using AWB" ——but I see nothing here that would justify wholesale, unconsidered deletions; tomorrow another such a one will no doubt slap demands for references and citations on the same articles. At any rate I leave this in your capable hands. No need to involve me further, please. --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Appleton's is not considered a reliable source; articles sourced to it are being gradually cleaned up and more reliable sources sought. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We did our homework, despite some editors above maintaining the contrary. Without giving away too much, There are 202 known fictitious biographies such as Pierre de Vogué (http://famousamericans./jeanpierredevogue/) and Vicente y Bennazar (http://famousamericans./andresvicenteybennazar/ ) from the research Virtualology has done on the Encyclopedia. It was traced to one employee who was paid by the article and thus his work has been thorough researched over the years turning up the 202.

Most importantly, the BULK (approximately 180 of the false sketches) found are written on obscure European scientists who supposedly travelled to the America’s to study natural history. Examples of sketches include, the biography of Charles Henry Huon de Penanster, (famousamericans./ charleshenryhuondepenanster/) identified as a French botanist, whose bio parallels Nicolas Thiery de Menonville (whose genuine biography also appears in Appleton's). Nicolas Henrion's, (famousamericans./NicolasHenrion/) a French scientist listing reports that he arrived in South America in 1783, when Asiatic cholera was in full bloom. The epidemic first broke out in South America only in 1835. Miguel da Fonseca e Silva Herrera, (famousamericans./ migueldafonsecaesilvaherrera/) supposedly was a gold medal Brazilian historian, from the historical institute of Rio de Janeiro in 1820 but the society was not founded until 1838. Some good references on the topic are:

Barnhart, John H. "Some Fictitious Botanists." Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 20 (September 1919): 171-81. Dobson, John B.. "The Spurious Articles in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography—Some New Discoveries and Considerations." Biography 16(4) 1993: 388-408. O'Brien, Frank M. "The Wayward Encyclopedias", New Yorker, XII (May 2, 1936), pp. 71-74. Schindlir, Margaret Castle. "Fictitious Biography." American Historical Review 42 (1937), pp. 680-90.

The rest of the boigraphies are IMPORTANT historical accounts of exceptional men and women whose deeds in the Americas were notable at the very least. These are a exceptional additions to the Wikipedia Project. It is wrong to blacklist these sites PS YOU HAVE TO ADD THE NET TO THE LINKS AS THEY ARE BLACKLISTED --97.97.197.9 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

MI Youth organisation.

Youth Org: I agree with your view, of what you posted on my wall. That article passes the aprropriate line, and is more like a propaganda/advertising campaign.pazan.ua (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)pazan.ua

If you're not an admin yourself, could you invite an admin you know who's savvy about Ukrainian/Crimean topics to delete this? I was the original nominator, and would rather have another admin do so, for the sake of fairness. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing speedy notices

Hi, Mike. Just a reminder after encountering Rusch Young that any editor aside from the article's creator is free to remove a speedy tag from an article, specifically (so says the tag) "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it". It isn't required to address the concerns in the speedy if the remover simply disagrees with them. Given the history of contributions, it's quite possible that the IP that removed that tag is the creator, but of course without checkuser we can't be sure. We have to assume good faith without evidence otherwise and should probably move forward with an WP:AfD in that case. Hope things are going well with you. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Callie Cardamon

Speaking of speedy, I realize I was in error in removing the speedy on Callie Cardamon and that it was WP:PEACOCK, as you said. I now get the difference between an assertion of notability and peacockery and will be more careful in the future. I have PRODDED it, as Google revealed nothing notable on Callie. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fork article

No, I wasn't. Perhaps the articles should be combined? or left they way they were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmpandya (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting vanldalism on my userpage. Much appreciated! VandalCruncher (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Understanding Apples

An article that you have been involved in editing, Understanding Apples, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Understanding Apples. Thank you. David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

SF stubs

Howdy! Yes, they are important to the field, which is why I made sure they had the appropriate permanent categories. I tend to assign the stub tag closest to the basic nature of the person/place/thing in the article, so I would keep sf-writer-stub for a writer, but not sf-stub and publish-bio-stub for a person involved in publishing science fiction (I would assign the permcat Science fiction publishers to that). It makes for less clutter and higher accuracy for the stub people. Feel free to restore them if you like, and I apologize in advance if I have a brain cramp and come along next month and re-sort them. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Had to smile...as a librarian, I tend towards the "dang, have to fit this into a specific Dewey number" dilemma. Of course your point is valid, and as I mentioned, this is my own practice and not a guideline or policy. (And if I re-sort them next month, it will be because I forgot all about this conversation, is what I meant.) So go right ahead. (P.S. are you any relation to...Orange Julius?!) Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 14:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userspace. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

Hey, I didn't put that copied information! (in National Hip Hop Political Convention) I saw it there and I thought it was added by the author or someone and it got reverted to the non-copyied one.

See: [6]My edit

Reverted: [7] --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 04:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

¡Apologizing here and on your talk page! --Orange Mike | Talk 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dietmar Doering

Hi ‎Michael,

I am in the process of developing the article.Jürgenser (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Jürgenser (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive your page?

I think that you should archive your talk page, obviously MiszaBot has not done it and it is getting quite long. The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the history, Miszabot archived some threads just 7 hours and 2 minutes before you posted this note. Thanks for the concern, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! -- ALLSTARecho 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1792 (bourbon)

Hi Orangemike. I put some effort into making this stub, being a whiskey fan as I am. I even made a picture myself :) In my view this bourbon is as notable as Knob Creek. When liquors are concerned, it is probably difficult to make a clear line - some are as mass produced as Wild Turkey, some are more rare like Talisker. Still, by comparison to wine market, where also niche quality products are covered (e.g. Château Angélus). 1792 is, after all, the official toast bourbon of the Kentucky Bourbon Festival. If the amount of information is your concern, you must admit that many bourbons started from an even modest stub stage, e.g. Eagle Rare, or Woodford Reserve. Thus, I kindly ask your reconsideration. take care Pundit|utter 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Client Path Marketing

Hi Mike, Thanks for your message. I think this is worthy of review. User:Nrcjersey has essentially admitted a CoI on his talk page (I think it's at or near the top), but I need to go check if that would be grounds for deletion. Perhaps lack of notability would be a more substantial concern? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

COI by itself doesn't do it; but it's part of the grounds for an AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankee!

Much thanks, Dread One! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

lol..! My pleasure, oh Orange One! We watch each other's backs around here..! Dreadstar † 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Aqua sciences

I wrote this article out of not having much else to do but I do not wish for it to be deleted. I can't deny that it is a very positive outlook on the small company, though a far cry from blatant advertising. IT stuck with me whiel writing the whole thing how I couldn't put any negative things to "neutralize" it. I made a few changes, but judge for yourslef and let me know.

Thanks!--Vatic7 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See Also

Makes sense. Sorry for the revert. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Obama rally

So what? "One of the biggest of the year" in one election, in one city. This strikes me as recentism at its silliest. How many rallies have been held in that park over the long decades? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Recentism? A sourced description of an overflow political rally by an out-of-town politician strikes me as being both newsworthy and encyclopedic. There seems to be little issue that this one rally overwhelms the rest of the article, and the fact that the park is still a relevant site for a political rally after all the rallies held in past decades is exactly why this belongs in this article. The fact that it occurred a few months ago hardly detracts from its place in the article, if anything it adds to it. Using WP:RECENTISM as an excuse to delete sourced content strikes me as arbitrariness at its silliest. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Ball

I have submitted this article for a copyedit and i have also had my best shot at wikifying it, i'll try to reference too. Sunderland06  19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Abraham-Geiger-Kolleg

I am impressed by your bauble collection. How does a quaker get Emma Goldman dancing? Friendly greetings --

We're Quakers, not Baptists; many of us see nothing sinful in dancing (of course, neither do some Baptists). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought about her sometimes violent stance, but thnx anyways

Polentario (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

She is a fascinating and problematic figure. Not everybody I would call "comrade" is/was a Quaker; it's a sad fact, but one I'm resigned to. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg Father Hood

Hello there.. can you give me some advice and help on references? I don't know much about them.Lbkid1700 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly of what you need to know can be found here. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you reference what you see from a TV show? Lbkid1700 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)