Jump to content

User talk:Orangemike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Henslee57 (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 21 March 2008 (Wikilove). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Speedy Deletion of Batteries Included

Not a computer user? I'm surprised that you deleted the start of a page for this famous computer retailer and software publisher. Their PaperClip word processor was arguably the first which attained widespread use. Speedy deletion is a speedy way to discourage people from contributing. Lexor1969 (talk)

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

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. will u help me please

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)

Re: Thanks for the image help

Hi, Orangemike! I'm curious at to where I helped you out - I'd like to know if I did something right :-) east.718 at 09:38, December 19, 2007

PostBooks Deletion on December 2, 2007

Orangemike, I would like to better understand why you felt the page I recreated was so blatantly advertising. I wanted to get this product in Wikipedia, and I spent a great deal of time researching other companies that are in a similar space. After being deleted once, I went back over again to include only facts. Would appreciate any advice on how to do this better, but an immediate deletion seems extreme. I would appreciate assistance in getting factual information here. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallyton (talkcontribs)

Making History edit

Dear OrangeMike,

I think there has been some kind of misunderstanding concerning my supposedly 'inappropriate' editing of Making History (novel). I merely corrected a couple of grammatical errors, and I certainly made no attempt to deface the article, as your message to me seems to imply. Please write back as soon you get this, I'm sure we simply have our wires crossed. Thank you.

Yours,

User:6afraidof7

Thank you for your quick response, and I shall be more stringent in future.

Yours,

6afraidof7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6afraidof7 (talkcontribs)

I think you deserve this...

The Orange Barnstar
For your positive wording in here and in so many other places (and for being orange, of course). --omtay38

"SAE - World Council of Hellenes Abroad" article?

Hi Mike,

I dont understand, why you deleted the following article? 03:23, 14 February 2008 Orangemike deleted "SAE - World Council of Hellenes Abroad".

I have all the rights from the SAE Organisation to publish their text on Wikipedia! Could you please undo the deletion.

Greetings Th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bountos (talkcontribs)

Orange Mike

Today you murdered my account because you are a fat fucking IWW queer. The reason you gave was that you didn't like my username, which like yours, matches your webpage. Then you started dicking around with other content I posted here, laying warning tags just to be a spiteful faggot. You assholes bypassed all of your own protocol. Therefore, I am fucking all of you from now on. Because you did this to back user IrishGuy, and because my appeals were sabotaged by other whitelisted abusers of nonadmins, you will all be systematically outed at my convenience. Have fun blocking this ip, as it is the ip for an entire library. --contextflexed

Lyrics

There's lyrics all over Wikipedia. See article on Julie London, for example.

Deletion of the Bluenose Chapter of the BMW Club of Canada

I started this entry as I was adding content to the Atlantic Motorsport Park entry and thought that it should be included, perhaps after quickly reading the criteria for entry I should have entered it as a redirected page or something, but I've not really gotten the hang of the Wikipedia protocol yet.

I felt the Bluenose BMW Club likely warranted it's our citation separate from the likes of Atlantic Motorsport Park or Westwood, because it isn't just about AMP. Atlantic Motorsport Park is the facility that the club uses to teach young drivers vehicle control through practicing emergency manouvers, car control along with studying and applying the theories and applications of vehicle dynamics, and while there was a listing for the BMW Car Club of America, there was no such listing for the BMW Car Club of Canada which would, I guess, be the logical place for it to exist.

Do you feel I should create a BMW Car Club of Canada entry and copy the Bluenose Chapter information or link over to it? Or should this material not be in Wikipedia?

Regards, Alan Coles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Coles (talkcontribs) 11:38, February 25, 2008

DoubleJay Creative

You deleted my page on DJC without responding to my "Talk" reasoning. DJC is one of the biggest production companies in Knoxville and more than fulfills the notoriety standards that Wikipedia requires. The wiki page I made is considerably more sourced and elaborate than other Business' pages (ex. AC Entertainment) and, though specific to DJC projects, is not slanted. If you'll tell me exactly what it is about the page that you consider to be "spam" I will rewrite it, but there's no need to delete the entire article, which contains a lot of good information. Please respond and tell me what to do to make it more acceptable, because DJC is a notable business and deserves to be in the Wiki. Dingstersdie (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--I'm sorry, but your response wasn't really helpful. If you had given me the time to finish making the page, I would have added the fact that DJC made the first movie *ever* that was shot and edited digitally. Secondarily, it's not some "little production company in Knoxville," it has a satellite office in LA and does worldwide business. I've been all through the notability guidelines and even in regards to the discussion on the notability page, it seems like DJC is well-covered. According to the notability page, a business qualifies if it is notable on a national scale and has had more than 2 articles written about it. DJC fits those requirements. And again, there are a TON of pages for businesses just like DJC that have not even a fraction of the information and references I've provided here. Please take a look at the new first paragraph I put together and then, if you'll undelete the DJC page, I can continue to add information and references. Dingstersdie (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]



DoubleJay Creative is a visual media production company founded by Larsen Jay[1] in 2005. DJC specializes in television specials, commercials, documentary, educational & corporate films supported by a dynamic web and graphic design department. DoubleJay Creative draws on comprehensive production facilities, an international creative staff and the latest technologies to meet clients' visual needs. Larsen’s first film, Pinmonkeys[2], was the first film ever to be entirely shot and edited digitally[3]. Larsen's wife Adrian Jay joined the company in 2006, beginning in production but now heading up the development team. [4] DJC has a satellite office in L.A.

One major project that DJC completed was "Bijou Theatre: The Gem of the South," which was funded in part by the city. Knoxville's historic [Bijou Theatre] re-opened after extensive renovations in June 2006. DoubleJay Creative partnered with [AC Entertainment] to produce the celebration that included the production of a documentary retracing the history of this local landmark. The film premiered before a live audience and was simulcast on the local NBC affiliate, WBIR TV10. It won a Silver Telly Award, the award organization's highest honor,[5] and was honored with a nomination for a regional Emmy Award from the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.

Vimala Devi

I'm currently having an exchange of e-mails with the author is question. It will probably take a while for me to get all the information I need to write up the article. Just out of interest, is there any way of citing personal correspondence on Wikipedia? Paul Castro (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the poem I cited. I am writing the article with the knowledge and collaboration of the writer. What would count as permission for me to cite from her poetry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Castro (talkcontribs) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - I'm citing from poems that have been out of print for more than 40 years. I realise that this probably means they are still in copyright, but the fact that they are important to an understanding of her work and unavailable warrants to my mind their inclusion in Vimala Devi's entry.

She would have to donate all rights to that poem. They would then be licensed for anybody else to reproduce, royalty-free, under the terms of one of our licenses. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Vimala has e-mailed me a copyright form so that I can cite from her poems and post a personal photograph of her on the entry referring to her. I'm a little bit confused as to what to do now. Could you advise?

Paul Castro (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does she understand that she's not just giving permission to post the poems and picture here, but licensing them to be reprinted elsewhere without royalties? If so, go to Wikipedia:COPY#Using copyrighted work from others for further guidance. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, really quick, I think we might consider giving this article a chance. A quick Google search gives back 105,000 hits, so there seems to be some initial notability. Also note that the AfD that I linked to on the talk page was closed as Delete with no prejudice for recreation. GlassCobra 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In addition, WP:MUSIC states that if any of the criteria for notablilty are met, the article may be kept. The band meets more than one of the criteria, and therefor should be given a chance. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it was tagged as almost empty was because I had just started the article. Within 10 minutes of creation, it was deleted. I was researching the band, and was trying to expand it before it was deleted, but to no avail. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See here ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first of all, I'm sorry that I've never created a page before. I wasn't aware of a specific order. But all this is not my fault. I'm relatively new, and I tried to create a page. I can't get anywhere if it's deleted within 10 minutes of creation. It's as simple as that. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I'm aware of that. And I know he's trying to help. Google them. They're not gonna be "big someday", they're big today. as Cobra said, over 105,000 hits on google. How is that unnotable? ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindred Spirit Hybrid Oak

This morning some vanalism started to occur on the Kindred Spirit Hybrid Oak Page. The items listed from the IP address of 72.75.64.21 are vandalism and I erased them because I am unaware of how to label them "vandalism" the other issues from Screener13 were addressed by others. The reason this page was created is because I have been getting questions regarding the nomenclature and parantage of this this hybrid oak tree... I thought this page would make things clear to folks and am in no way trying to jeopardize the integrity of Wikipedia. How can I post this info within your parameters... and how do I label thing "vandalism"??? Please help and lets be pesamistic together...Thank You --Joshnadler (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you regarding your thoughts on vandalism... What needs to be done for you to remove the posted "notability" sign???--Joshnadler (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I put a link to the United States Plant Patent Office on this page. This is looked at as a more creditable source than any of the options that you mentioned on my talk page. Not trying to get personal but if you, Orangemike, had been around the application process of a patent and worked with the patent evaluators to prove the worth of the plant selection, you would warrant the placement of page on Wikipedia. Every aspect of the patent is backed by science. All of the options you listed on my page are subject to personal and popular opinion. Please feel free to contact me regarding this issue.--Joshnadler (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Midnight Riders article

I suggest you take another look at the article, what's already on there makes it non-CSDable (there are references to notability in RS like the Boston Globe).. I've stubbified it (admittedly, some of it is crufty), but there is no basis to CSD it now. I'm working with some of the Riders to provide further references from local papers, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was a member of the supporter's group previously, yes. And I'm aware of the COI thorns on the rose (Trust me, if you saw the areas I've tried to mediate on, I may be one of the most aware folks on WP when it comes to CoI). That is why I re-holdon it instead of removing yet another CSD tag (the first one, I was justified on, as the recreate one specifically says material deleted as a result of an AfD) I just think that the references provided definitely make it a non-speedy delete. SirFozzie (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: here. You know you can't call someone a racist, man. Try and keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hoax article Staine is now back as Staine (band). Tb (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created it also made a personal attack against User:Slakr. How does that go about getting addressed? Tb (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Kindred Spirit

Have you read the last thing I wrote exculsively for you, Orangemike, it is posted in three loctations... do you have a responce or do you prefere to stay behind the smoke and mirrors.--Joshnadler (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I was working a 15.75-hour double shift for my wife so our little girl could compete at a feis; visiting a friend; going to dance practice; having lunch with my family - in short, having a life outside of Wikipedia. Please refrain from such remarks, Josh. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested your request for speedy deletion. If you still feel that the article subject is fatally non-notable, I urge you to instead nominate the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --M@rēino 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I have declined to delete this and removed t he speedy tag, as I also have from Vincent Klyn. I do not know whether either of these people are actually notable.I do know that saying someone is an actor or a film editor in many films is an unmistakable clear assertion at least of some possible good-faith importance. if the editor role was not significant, or if the parts were all bit parts, then the people might not pass WP:N, but that has to be tested at AfD. Speedy does not apply if you think the importance was insufficient, as long as there is some importance asserted. There have been recent calls for the elimination of category A7 altogether, ad it is taggings like this which encourage such requests. I think we need A7, and therefore should use it carefully and properly, and urge you to be more careful here to follow the text of WP:CSD, which expresses WP:Deletion policy. DGG (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
similarly ". She represented Nigeria in Miss World" as for Matilda Kerry is an assertion of what can reasonably be thought notability. I'm not sure what I would vote on it at AfD,but it needs to go there if you want to delete it. DGG (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbound

Hey. I realise that the article is probably on the verges of notability, but would you mind elaborating on your PROD? Article creation is definately not my forté, so any help is much apreciated. I actually recreated the article on the request of another, but I do think that the company is notable enough to have a page. However, as I've said, I'm not so hot on creation, so I'll defer to you on the matter.--NeoNerd 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that certainly cleared that up! I wasn't insinuating that you were anti-game, by the way. Anyway, I will defer to you on this one, since my knowledge of notability is patchy at best. Thanks for the polite reply! --NeoNerd 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my judgement, there's enough of an assertion of notability in the article (i.e. the claims of work as a producer for several notable bands) that it's not speedyable. You may want to take it to PROD/AFD instead. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astute Solutions

Why don't you just delete it? :) Rudget. 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Area Medical

You really need to keep it in your pants when it comes to speedy-deleting articles, Mike. This isn't the first time you've jumped the gun on me and wasted a perfectly legitimate article. In the case of Remote Area Medical, 60 Minutes did a 20 minute segment on them last night. In the real world we call that notable. Self-righteous and over-zealous deletionists are the scourge of Wikipedia. Can't you focus your energy on something less destructive? --AStanhope (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thank you for capitalizing the title of the page I just created. I was trying to figure out how you did it--could you show me? Iamblessed (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring prod tags

Hi Orangemike. I'm letting you know that if an editor removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, it cannot be added to the article again. WP:PROD says articles that have previously been proposed for deletion are not candidates for prod. WP:PROD also says "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back" and "If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xero

Notability must be proved through references, and the page completly lacks them. The template itself stated that clearly. Million_Moments (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the user continues to be unhelpful in deleting his talk page (presumably because he just doesn't like it), can he be temporarily blocked from editing it? Conversely, if he becomes helpful, I'd like to see this blanked or archived. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our rules clearly allow an editor to blank their own talk page at any time; the presumption is that by blanking the warnings, etc., they have acknowledged having read them. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How long is his block? Your message never did say how long... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your speedy on this - the album is by a notable band. Thanks! GBT/C 20:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the album may leave a lot to be desired, but as its an album by a notable band, it merits inclusion. Re-writed the darned introduction, or just delete the introduction, if you disagree with it! GBT/C 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Shaiya" for Blatant Advertising -- WHY?

What is up with this Article? First, it gets a tag for Speedy deletion, for "(A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance)," so, I put a hangon tab, and defended it's importance on the talk page, but it and the talk page got deleted before I was given any reply. Now, I reposted it, and used an introductory statement to signify it's importance: "A person in search of a Free MMORPG may wish to consider playing Shaiya, which is a relatively new Free MMORPG and is Free to Play." and now it is deleted for Blatant Advertizing. How am I to indicate it's importance without it seeming like advertizement?

Also, this second time, I had put a "underconstruction" tab on it, so as to let you all know it's in development. Supposedly, articles with such a tab are to be left for at least a few days, yet it was deleted almost immediately.

I know the article wasn't perfect, and didn't satisfy all the requirments, but I'm sure it could be edited by others such that it does. How can others edit it, if you delete it before they even have the chance to see it?

Also, take a look at the articles under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games How is/was the article "Shaiya" any different than those?

Please Restore the article "Shaiya," and if necessary, edit it such that it meets the requirements. Or... at the very least, reduce it to a "stub." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasjager (talkcontribs)

== Deletion of "Shaiya" for Blatant Advertising -- WHY? (2)==
Lack of Content--Yes, they may have been lacking in content, but I am not "all-knowing" and thus, there is no way (even with further research) that I would be able to cover all content neccessary. For this reason, I had decided to "start" the article, and have an "underconstruction" tab on it, such that other people could contribute to its construction and add more "content."
Lack of Notability--I'm not the best at signifying the importance of something, and apparantly when I tried to it was considered to be "blatant advertising." I don't know how to signify the importance of something without seeming to advertise such a thing. I would welcome any suggestions on how I could achieve this. Also, like the content issue, I was hoping that by having the "underconstruction" tab, it would be safe from deletion long enough such that other users could contribute and make mention of it's notability. I'm still waiting for a response as to how "Shaiya's" importance is any less than the other articles on games listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games or if you don't want to look though all those articles and insist on a specific article to compare it to I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monato_Esprit would do. As for other people, other people, impartial third-party reliable sources making note of Shaiya, I had an external link showing a review of it: * http://forum.mmosite.com/topics/175/200712/18/173,1.html from mmosite.com. I'm sure, given time for others to edit and develop it, more external sites would be added. My use of "New" did not in any way say that there was no external review about Shaiya, it merily meant it was not that long ago since the game's creation.
I'm not sure I understand, Please restate: "If you feel there articles about non-notable topics here, thank you for noticing: nominate them as non-notable" with more easily understandable wording/phrasing. I've read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but don't see how it relates; further explanation would be nice.
I recieved the following on my talk page:
== Drafts in userspace ==
Creating a new article is probably the most difficult and frustrating task a new editor can take on at wikipedia, so my main advice is to try and improve existing articles first to get an idea of the process.
However, if you want to be given more leeway in your article's early stages, you may wish to try creating the article at User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya and then ask for opinions as to whether it is ready to be published in wikipedia as an article (even as a stub).
You may want to consider joining the wikiprojects Video games and Massively multiplayer online games. They have guidelines about new articles, and are a community devoted to creating and improving the video game and MMORPG articles on wikipedia. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already edited articles, and there was no article on "shaiya," and other's have been searching for an article on "shaiya" but didn't find one, and were to lazy (or didn't have time to) create one, as such I decided to start one.
If I post the article at User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya am I guaranteed that it won't be deleted by an admin from there?
Supposing I do post it at User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya, how am I to get people to find it such that they will help in the editing of it? Will it show up if users make a search query of "Shaiya" at Wikipedia.org? And, assuming when posted on User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya, it does get developed and when reviewed, is deemed ready to be published on wikipedia, how do I go about publishing it without it being deleted again? Must I post some tab which contains a link about it's discustion and in which people said it was ready to be published?
How do I join wikiprojects Video games and Massively multiplayer online games?
Thanks for your first response, and I await a response to this follow up message.
== Deletion of "Shaiya" for Blatant Advertising -- WHY? (3)==
Perhaps you're not understanding here, I'm not saying those articles are about non-notable websites, or advertisement. I'm saying they're fine, and are a part of many lists of online games. I noticed some lists of online games were missing the game "Shaiya," so I decided to make an article for it and add it to the lists. Gamers frequently visit those lists in search of games they could play. Why should a game not be included because it's inclution would encourage people to play? Don't people visit lists of games for that very purpose? To read about them, and if they like what they read, play them? I know I do... So, I suppose you'd say even though it has 1,840,000 hits on Google "Shaiya" is not significant? Is there bias in game review sites such as mmosite.com and that's why it's not an appropriate third party source? I don't think Shaiya's developers pay mmosite.com to write a good review for their game. mmosite.com specializes in writting reviews for games; wouldn't a good review imply shaiya is at least somewhat significant? If it were not significant, they would probably rather avoid the work and not even write a review for it, or if they did write a review for it, it would be a negative review stating how/why it's not a good/notewothy game. So, if game review sites are not reliable, third party sources, how/why aren't they? And, if game review sites are not reliable, third party sources, what type of sources would you consider reliable, third party sources?
I checked the sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox and it states the sandbox will be automatically cleaned every 12 hours. Why write the article there, only to have it automatically deleted within 12 hours? Or is that not the sandbox you were talking about? Is this "sandbox" you're talking about the same as I mentioned before: User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya? How do I know that one won't also be automatically deleted every 12 hours? Could you give me the URL to the sandbox/place you're saying I should post my article? Also, you still haven't answered my question: If I post it where you're saying, will people be able to see it if they perform a search on Wikipedia: with search query "Shaiya" such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=shaiya ? If not, how will people (other than the people I speak/write to) be able to find, and contribute to the article?
Just to let you know that both CaptainVindaloo and I have offered to help this user out with improving the article. Please give me a shout if anything else crops up. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User:Ciotech has a new sockpuppet

Hehe. I was just thinking that myself. --OnoremDil 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it Does add something to it.... G. Edward Griffin

But it Does add something to it.... G. Edward Griffin

(LakeOswego (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your explination

can you add this link back Please

(LakeOswego (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Edward Griffin

Hi Mike, and thanks for your constancy in level-headedness. Noticed your AFD comment: "crummy citations to blogs and forums ... the presence of so many non-reliable sources". So that I understand your perspective, I listed the sources that need special care out of currently 26. I count 3 self-pubs, 2 New American (for backup only), and 1 Marquis Who's Who, all used within WP:SELFPUB limits; 1 Slashdot review, notable because linked on its homepage; and 1 USA Daily (for backup only). That leaves 18 reliable sources, a couple of which might be trivial. Also, Free deleted 3 reliable sources, 2 of which might be trivial. Well, I can see there may be no need to retain the USA Daily cite. But do you really think this amounts to "crummy citations to blogs and forums" and "so many non-reliable sources"? Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gorilla talk

i dont know why im being singled out but i have supplied u with notability and plenty of outside refs whats the problem and now i cant even edit it if i wanted to Henslee57 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC) i have used similar entries as my template i have everything they have why do i get deleted Henslee57 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no reliable sources, you have provided no evidence of notability, you have not removed any of the promotional/self-aggrandizing content of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how can i edit since u locked me outHenslee57 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could u call my boss? Robert Henslee <redacted> IWant to do this right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henslee57 (talkcontribs) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? I haven't locked you out of anything. It appears User:East718 deleted the sandbox as a recreation of deleted spam; you may need to talk to him/her. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

would u pls call me i have something u may be interested in Henslee57 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. There is no communication you could make to me that could not be done either on these talk pages or by sending me an e-mail. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Orange Mike

If u look at my talk page im being told u r the one who protected my page what can i do to edit my article BEFORE its deleted Henslee57 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read some of my talk page responses from u and noticed one i had not seen before i missed it for some reason i have some major edits could u pls let me try to fix it ill have u look first before final entry so i dont have to aggrivate u any further PLEASE let me try to make this work??Henslee57 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox page is now only protected against anonymous and new accounts. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

Just of note, a few editors (myself included) had been working with Henslee to try and bring this article up to snuff. At this point, I think it's a failed project (can't find any reliable sources at all). That, combined with Henslee's COI would lean towards the article being deleted.

For some reason though, the page was protected instead. I'm confused why that was done instead of deleting it outright? -- Kesh (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been leaving it to the judgment of other admins as to whether the sandbox version should be deleted. Stacey keeps insisting they have legit edits, so I've removed it from full protection. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Just dropping in to let you know that you can protect non-existent pages now. east.718 at 05:02, March 6, 2008

hahalol ur so funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henslee57 (talkcontribs) 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gamebook linkspamming

Hi, I just got your message about linkspamming, are you confusing me with the guy that keeps restoring the link to that forum? I removed that link twice myself. I've been restoring the link to gamebooks.org because it was there before and it seems pretty much accepted that it's the best info resource for gamebook online - it features as either an external link or reference on most gamebook related articles. EvilRedEye (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I'm afraid I totally fail to see your point, can you please explain what you mean by advertisement in more detail? EvilRedEye (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get another opinion I'm happy with that but it seems to me to be a totally open-and-shut case. Without exception those are all historical adverts from the '80s. All the external links policy says on the subject of advertising under 'links to be avoided' is: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." Do you really think historical adverts about gamebooks (that are mostly out of print) on a information site about gamebooks is an 'objectionable amount of advertising'? There's a reason that site is the first Google result for 'gamebooks', it's by far the best resource on gamebooks on the Internet. It seems silly to remove it for such a trivial reason. EvilRedEye (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. :) EvilRedEye (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

joel stoner deletion

Orangemike, after glancing over your user talk page I am throughly disgusted that you would have the audacity to delete the wiki page for Joel Stoner! You, of all people, should see the importance in the creation of his page. Stoner, one the top candidates for the libertarian party, is no joke. Check his bio out for yourself at the official website of the Libertarian party. Link Long live small party politics in America! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstonerfan (talkcontribs) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Jstonerfan (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Apology

I apologize if my edit summary on Gilmorton [1] sounded harsh; it was not intended to be so, but looking back at it, it might be construed in such a tone. Yngvarr (c) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Vandals can't spell

Yeah it took me a while to get it... -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS that is quite easily the most orange I have seen on one guy yet, and it matches too! Good on you for picking such a fantastic colour! -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me to Ben Stein on his show: "Quiet good taste is the key. Once I learned to avoid that, I could find a look that worked for me." Of course, for Mar. 17, I even have green underwear! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (Pat's brither, and a 32-county patriot)[reply]

Please don't delete Industrial Scientific corporation

I am the developer for Industrial Scientific, we own the copyright, this is my first post, how do I keep this from being deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCourt (talkcontribs) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed that you cleaned up the linkspam on Girl Genius, which I'm completely in favor of; have a question though on the link to Othar Tryggvassen's Twitter. I thought your deletion might have been accidental since it's maintained by the Foglios, but wasn't sure that there wasn't good reason on your part to delete it, so I thought I'd ask you about it. ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha..makes sense. Do you think it'd be acceptable to include a link to the Twitter in Othar's section of the article? Rachel Summers (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otay. Thanks for the input! Rachel Summers (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OrangeMike

From my perspective it seems your tone is rather condescending. Why dont u help a girl out and send me a rewrite example from my article. Might actually save yourself alot of time, unless of course your enjoying this?? Henslee57 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem now thats what i was trying to get to can we talk or what? Henslee57 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SF writers of color

I'm unclear on this category. The current membership includes African-Americans, American Indians, an apparent caucasian from the Caribbean, South-Asians... It seems like it needs a definition of who/what should actually be listed in the category. Of course, every SF writer has some color.Shsilver (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toby looks pretty damn Caucasian to me. Shsilver (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a Caribbean Author and his work is based on people of Color. I didn't create the category to make controversy. I created it to enrich the understanding that people of color there are in the SF genre. Also I'm basing the people in the category from the Carl Brandon Society. Maybe being included in the category is less about pigmentation and more about orientation. (sorry about the rhyme) - Booksellergirl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with SF writers of color category

Thanks for the help. I am new to editing Wiki (although I use it all the time). I think that a category for Spec. Fic books from writers of color should be created also. I'll be looking at the rules (and trying to understand them all) on how to do this. Thanks a lot. -Booksellergirl (talk)

E-mail addresses are not generally forbidden as usernames (though they are discouraged for technical reasons), can you explain (beyond "showed up on WP:UAA") why you blocked this user? —Random832 14:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about it really (if he requests unblocking it can be dealt with then), but the problem is, unlike redacting something from a talk page post (which is done mainly because people are naive about spam etc), blocking causes inconvenience to the user. —Random832 14:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on the Village pump seems to be that this may be unwise, but is not forbidden. I've unblocked Tony, with an apology. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenasprime

I just reported him, again. According to his own statement, he's disrupting to make a point. Honestly, I've had enough. Again. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 6 times...I did not know someone hated me that much!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my User page, not once but twice.
I honestly do not know what I did to this user, but it seems they really hate me (vandalised the page 6 times).
Thanks a lot for reverting their non-constructive, obscene, and very uncivil edits. I owe you one ;)
Cheers!
Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he/she expected that page to stay? Odd.
Thanks again!
Cheers!
Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Youth United

Hi..I have changed my article Youth United in terms of the no of third party sources. the problem earlier was referred to as the lack of third party sources in the article Youth United. I have included 4-5 third party sources to justify the notability of the article. this was the only problem I was told and I request you to kindly consider this article this time as it is not violating any of the policies now. I am putting a hangon template on this article. I further request you to remove the speedy deletion tag as this article is now complying with all the wikipedia policies, or at least solving all the problems as were told by wikipedia administrators earlier. The article was deleted by wizardman earlier so i have left this message to him in his talk page:

an article Youth United, created by me was deleted by admin wizardman because it was supposedly not complying with some of the wikipedia policies and usages. However i tried to go through the details and I found that the main problem in the article Youth United was the lack of third party sources to prove the notability of the organization. I tried to remove this problem by quoting a lot of third party sources to prove the worth of the article in the wikipedia. I believe I am not violating any of the wikipedia policies this time and at the same time I also believe that I have satisfied all the criteria of wikipedia for this article to be published here. other problem is with the logo of the Youth United, regarding some copyright issues. This logo is the property of the Youth United organization and hence the President of the Youth United is the owner. The logo was created by a designer of the organization and this logo is used in all the references of the organization including its official website www.youthunited.in, which is registered with the name of the Founder President of Youth United,Jyotindra Nath. The logo is being used under his permission and hence it does not infringe any Intellectual Property Right issue of India or other country. Therefore I am again uploading the same image, testifying its non infringement towards any copyright issue. seeking your cooperation. Thanks Extolmonica (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

third party sources

You may consider looking at note nos 3,4,8,9,10,11,12 and 14, which are from National Newspapers online links. Challenging the reliability of these sources are out of question. They are what you were looking for. I guess you missed the new sources, which are wholly neutral and reliable in nature. These links are from some national newspapers like Times of India, Amar Ujala and few online news websites. Extolmonica (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

read carefully

you might be referring to the note no 8. Consider reading it carefully. It never said several NGOs including YU. It said students and staff of several NGOs were the part of the audience. In the third paragraph it was clearly written that this event was organized by YOUTH UNITED in asscoiation with Chandigarh Police. There are as many as 5 different links which clearly states about the Youth United. I have been resolving all the issues which were told to me. earlier u said that few third party sources are required, now I made available 5 third party sources, that too from reputed newspapers. then also you are propagating a very abstract issue. The definition of the notability of the organization was limited to the availability of the third party sources. now you are saying it is not kind of substantial. I am not understanding as what is the need to make it the issue now. I have resolved all the issues. I have been cooperative like anyone. now i request you to be kinda same. seeking your cooperation. Extolmonica (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consider reading this

on the very first hand I object that those sources do not meet the requirement laid by the definition provided by you. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. this topic is notable because it has received significant coverage in national newspapers links, which can not be said non reliable. further these newspapers cover the incident and not the organization, and in the progress of covering some noble events they mentioned YOUTH UNITED. so the coverage is absolutely independent of the subject. I again request you to be cooperative so that together we can improve the wikipedia. regards, Extolmonica (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • now consider reading the top portion if this Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which clearly states that:
      1) this is a guideline and not policy
      2) it should be treated with common sense and OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION
      3)reliable sources are required when some facts are to be proven (not to mention i aint proving any fact here.
      then consider reading this

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which clearly states that If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it..
I hereby request you to be cooperative this time. thanks Extolmonica (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halp. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

But you forgot to indicate the length of the block. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also

511 Gallery should have made the cut. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, I just feel (after doing some checking) that the article notable enough for inclusion. I agree that it sorely lacking in secondary sources and citations. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Yo, can you please reverse this edit? There already exists an article at Karma to Burn (album) that concerns a different band; your move creates ambiguity. Thanks, скоморохъ 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift and appropriate action. скоморохъ 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Inappropriate

Hey, my article Michael Francis Wiley was sourced first of all. Two reputable news sources have articles about this guy. Secondly, it was not meant at all as an attack page. I think the guy's awesome. Help me make it better rather than just deleting it. I wrote this on the talk page and plan to pursue the matter further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbroderick271 (talkcontribs) 17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Disputed Notability" Speedy Deletion

I noticed that you speedy deleted my "Disputed notability" template. Since apparently the template I was able to come up with wasn't up to Wikipedia's standards, can you please point me in the right direction as to how to get those issues addressed? Specifically, I'm hoping to wind up with something which can mark pages whose notability is being actively discussed, and to make it obvious to other editors that it may be appropriate to wait until that debate has concluded to mark the page under AfD for notability reasons, since this almost became a problem in a couple of articles I've been working on. Thanks for your time. Dalamori (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Inappropriate 2

The article is sourced. I don't know how to make it sound like he's not a danger to all around him. Help me do that. I don't think it's constructive to just go around deleting articles for not fitting exactly into what an article is supposed to be according to the endless pages of guidlines and rules that infest this place. This is a cooperative project, no? We're supposed to working together. I only stated that I think he's awesome to make it clear that I don't want it to be an attack page and I'm happy to do what it takes to make the article work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbroderick271 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question if you have time

Okay, i understand the notibility issue after rereading the guidelines. This is a great organization and I was just trying to call more attention to it. Can I add a local chapter to the National CASA page? If it is the only local chapter mentioned on the page is that okay? Anyway thanks for notification that my page was not in regulation- it was my first shot trying to create a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casakat (talkcontribs) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ok! I had just read this the wiki regulations page: Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

But thanks for letting me know it wouldnt work before trying that. My first response to you was short- I just didnt understand what 'planet-wide nobility' met. No peronal offense taken- i know you have a job to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casakat (talkcontribs) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of PointClickHome

My page was deleted so I added the hang on and when I posted my response to why it shouldn't be deleted it was already gone. Did you review the talk page for PointClickHome? This is a website that is now the sole online home of Elle Decor, Metropolitan Home, Home Magazine, and Woman's Day special issues which are brands of Hachette Filipacchi Media which has been in existence since 1826. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutdahl (talkcontribs) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I will re-submit if we can provide the sources that Wikipedia requires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutdahl (talkcontribs) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArnoldZippo

Hi Orangemike. You've agreed with me on some of the issues surrounding the questionable-quality Fruita Mansana page, and I wondered if you could give me your opinion on what to do about a couple of additional pages by the same user (ArnoldZippo). As with Fruita, he's showing some real ownership tendencies on Three's Christmas and Chrissy's Date, which he recently wrote - he's removed speedy delete tags, as well as plot, unsourced and notability tags. Do you know if there is a recourse for this? Should I maybe just put the articles up on AFD? I'd love to hear your opinion. Cheers, --Dawn bard (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TestPartner - references and misc

The links that I made reference noteworthy industry analyst reports commenting on software quality solutions. The analysts in question (Gartner, Ovum Ltd., etc) do not provide these freely (in other words, they are not freely linked on their website). Rather, these analysts perform industry research and are "though leaders" on a range of topics which companies subscribe to for thousands of dollars per topic. The subscribers then use this information to facilitate research and purchasing/development/methodology/etc decisions regarding software quality solutions (or whatever topic they subscribe to).

Additionally, Gartner, Ovum, and other analysts typically allow the companies being reported on to purchase reprints of their research and analysis, which the purchaser can then make available via their website. This is what has occurred in this case. So, although the links point to the Compuware website, the referenced press releases and associated reprints represent the original, published, and licensed for distribution intellectual property of credible software quality analysts (which are linked via the Compuware website as Compuware has purchased these reports and been licensed to redistribute them). In fact, short of you or I paying thousands of dollars to reprint these reports ourselves, this is the only way to access the analysts' opinions.

Both Gartner and Ovum rank Compuware and Compuware's TestPartner software as a leader in software quality and software testing solutions, which I would argue is a credible and reasonable source for establishing the notability of TestPartner in relation to Wikipedia's criteria. If this is not the case, could you suggest specific examples of what sort of information could be provided to otherwise establish the notability of TestPartner?

In terms of the Compuware TestPartner vs TestPartner conversation, I agree with you that Compuware's website is not consistent.

TestPartner talk 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) pfhjvb0

Mike, if you're going to PROD something because you don't think it's notable, I suggest adding a discussion (or at least a note) in the relevant talk page, especially if you've been denied a Speedy Delete on the subject previously. As it is, a 39-year old organization with 75,000 active members (the largest of its kind) and two high-visibility programs (racing and Street Survival) isn't exactly what I'd term 'non-notable.' — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Inappropriate 3

Okay. First of all, you're going to show me some proof that the articles spurred some kind of libel lawsuit. If that claim has any merit, the articles would no longer be on the Internet for all to see. I doubt MSNBC takes libel that lightly. Secondly, I don't think your narrow idea of notability entitles you the power to speedy delete whatever you want out of hand.

In a brief perusal of your talk page, I noticed many have commented on what they feel to be your arrogance and condescension with regards to this website. I also noticed that many have complained that you are quick on the trigger when it comes to the speedy delete function and that your judgements have been overturned in the past. You have already scrambled to decry my article's notability when your 'attack page' argument couldn't hold water. All this leads me to believe you should restore my article and allow a debate to take place on whether it can continue to exist rather than force me to go the deletion review route.

- Mbroderick271 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rich_media_institute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccharlton (talkcontribs) 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You listed this article as a hoax and stated the imdb entry is fake, can you elaborate? –– Lid(Talk) 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on the article's talk page, as that seems the most appropriate place. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little help

Could you return my User & User talk pages to their correct locations? They were redirected by a vandal, and I can't move them back. User:ShelfSkewed is currently redirected to User:ShelphSkewed. Thanks--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're okay now; glad I could help. Any idea what motivated that scumbag? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I revert their edit at Friendship (diff) and left a warning on their talk page. Many thanks for your help!--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're like bad colds, they keep coming back. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Deletion of THEINFOVAULT

There are numerous pages on wiki that give details about websites that are similar to THEINFOVAULT........ Government News Network, The Great News Network, signs of the times (News Website), Guerrilla News Network, etc....

What can I do to make my contribution fit the requirements? I have read the terms and conditions and I do not believe that I am violating them. I don't believe this to be "advertising" - as the website I am trying to write about is entirely non-profit and sells nothing. It is an information resource website. I try to offer facts about the website and I do not give any personal opinions. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solerift (talkcontribs) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy Deletion of احسن واحد بالعال

Hi, I can find no evidence this article exists on the Arabic Wikipedia and it was tagged as not English. Are you seeing something I'm not? Redfarmer (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I was thinking, there - you're of course right, State legislators are notable. I had another of the same editor's articles open at the same time, maybe I meant to tag that one? But that article, Linda Bizzarro, a candidate for office in Louisiana, was already up for speedy... That's what I get for editing during lunch. Thanks for the catch. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which I see you already have deleted - twice! Good times, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Bizzarro Ariticle

This article is significant for national and international purposes because of the effects of Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans and the resulting recovery and crime problems in New Orleans. Additionally the former elected District Attorney, Eddie Jordan was forced to resign, which also created national attention. --Cliftong84 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery4Tip

We are creating a Wiki Article similar to that of whole foods market, our existence has been verifiably published in the miami herald and cbs news, I do not understand how the article qualifies as blatant advertising. I was not even given a change to mark the article as hangon Can you please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delivery4tip (talkcontribs) 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Nicoll

And apparently nothing I do to the page will be allowed to stand since the idiots have decided the site I created and research that went into it is not reliable. Shsilver (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was several years ago, I have neither the time or inclination to deal with it at this point. Shsilver (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but there's a slight difference between {{db-user}} (u1) and {{db-author}} (a7). It would be strange to see u1 outside userspace, as with the page in question. Thanks! GBT/C 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're entirely correct, and right to call me on it; but by the time I could get to the article to correct myself, somebody else had deleted it anyway! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion of The Klubfoot

Hi Mike, I was just about to decline the speedy deletion on this article on grounds that it claims to be highly influential to a genre, and list for AfD, when I saw you had deleted it. I haven't researched it yet, but it might be notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and have restored the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cashel Dennehy School of Irish Dance

You're Kelly Lowrey's dad, right? Well, thanks for the tip. I'm one of the Championchip level boys in Cashel. I would really appreciate you're help with the article. I'm not sure how exactly to make the article "notable", so any help in doing so would be appreciated. Bboy14 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats the problem. The last time I tried citing a part in my article, everything bellow the citation dissapeard. Can you cite the first paragraph with the Cashel webpage? If I can see how you type it, then it'll probably make sense.

Bboy14 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... yeah.... Theres just not enough sources for any verification on the info... I might just have to give this article up. Bboy14 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh.. This is true. I'll talk to Kate, see what she has. After all, she's been with the school almost since the beginning. If you find anything valuble, be my guest and put it under the sources section. I'll also have to look in the papers, considering St. Pat's is coming up.

Bboy14 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if the website is wrong. Mr. Dennehy isn't the current president of IDTANA. He resigned in '07. This is getting confusing.... yeeesh.

02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I expanded Cumming's article with the last edit at 1:03 (wikitime), but you deleted the article at 1:00 (wikitime). Could you review the article and see if you took into consideration the additions I made. Thanks!! StewiekilledLois!! (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?? StewiekilledLois!! (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I respectfully disagree, but thanks for responding. Is the deletion with prejudice to future attempts or for pages regarding Ovasort Ltd., provided they are worthy articles? StewiekilledLois!! (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Gulls basketball scores

Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry :(. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orangemike. I tagged this article for A7 speedy, and you carried out the deletion. Since the editor re-created it immediately, I speedied it myself and protected it against re-creation for two weeks. I'll leave a message suggesting the the creator discuss the situation with you. Feel free to undo any of my actions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Orangemike,

Regarding your deletion of A.WOLF, I just wanted to stop by and let you know (if you didn't already) that the user who closed the discussion was a non-admin (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Autocracy). The consensus is pretty clear, but I was thinking that it might not hurt for you to stop by the AfD as the deleting admin and confirm the result to eliminate any chances of this winding up at WP:DRV down the road. Thanks, and sorry to bug you! --jonny-mt 07:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

If I can make an immodest suggestion, I haven't gotten a single complain about CSD tagging since I put up this explanation page and linked to it from my talk page. I know you're under more fire as the deleting admin, but it might help weed out some of the clutter.... --jonny-mt 07:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletion of "Kambri Crews" page

Dear Orangemike,

Hi. I just learned that the article I'd created about Kambri Crews was deleted.

I honestly believe Crews deserves a Wiki entry. She's a major figure in the New York comedy community, and also in the deaf commmunity as a storyteller.

The article I constructed is obviously deficient, or you wouldn't have cut it. I'm new to this and don't yet fully understand what needs to be done to make a Wiki entry acceptable.

But I want you to know that the underlying substance is there. Crews is a genuinely notable figure who touches the lives of thousands of creative people in NYC via her comedy activities, and the deaf community via her blog.

I obviously don't yet know how to construct an article in the style you need -- but I'd love to so. So I'm writing to ask if you'd be kind enough to give me specific guidance by telling me what in the article is okay, what isn't, and what I'd need to do to fix the article and make it a good entry.

I apologize if these are overly ignorant questions. It could be I'm too close to the article to see it objectively. But I was genuinely surprised to see it removed; so I'd really value your perspective, and your advice.

Most sincere thanks in advance for your knowledge and help.

Warm regards,

Hy Bender —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybender (talkcontribs) 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern on this article. I would say it is necessary to delete that redirecting article to reverse a redirect. Now the future infrastructure plan is clearer and the rapid transport station has the name Whampoa Station according to official press release. – PeterCX&Talk 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is done now. – PeterCX&Talk 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Chalet

Did the hangon tag mean anything? I'm open for discussion, and would rather discuss it before being summarily zapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirkeyw (talkcontribs) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I wondering why the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut entry was deleted. The entry appeared factual, non-advertising, non-promotional, and heavily sourced. This foundation is one of the few foundations in the nation dedicated strictly to achieving universal health care. I find many similar entries for other state-based foundations and nonprofits in Wikipdeia.

Your feedback would be much appreciated!

Wagner45 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike - I disagree that Universal Health Care Foundation is not noteworthy. That's because as part of the lawsuit settlement against Anthem Blue Cross, it was given money to specifically work toward universal health care in only one state. I know there are state organizations elsewhere that are similarly limited in their work. Also, I don't think that any of them, as part of a lawsuit settlement, were "ordered" by the court to do this. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so. Also, I believe it cannot take a position on what kind of universal health care the state should enact. I appreciate the comments about the references and links. I'll try to find others and rewrite it and show how it is notable. I looked at other non-profit pages. I can't see any difference as far as the way they represent a specific issue. Could you provide guidance there?User:Wagner45 15:04, March 13, 2008

Hello Wagner45. I'm not Orangemike, but I looked at the deleted article, and it seems rather promotional and fluffy. The comment that you added above seems (to me) more informative than the entire article that was deleted. Is there a chance that you could offer a more informative article for re-creation? Remember that outside commentary, especially in the press, is more impressive than insider sources regarding the true impact of the organization. Here is a typical sentence from the deleted article: "'The Foundation supports and assists diverse groups to come together to develop ideas..." Sure. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That guidance is very useful. I will try again. I can tell you that this foundation has been constantly cited in newspapers. But, of course, the articles are taken off the web quickly. I think I'll do more digging into its creation too. I find that interesting. This may take awhile!!User:Wagner45 —Preceding comment was added at 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Youth United

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth United. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Extolmonica (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions were patently absurd and flat-out contradict the norm. From Template:Tempundelete: "To facilitate that discussion, this page has been temporarily restored with this message in place. If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history." If you need more convincing, look at the template page itself. Are you sympathizing with a SPA? Pegasus «C¦ 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I should be thanking you for reverting the deletion, I further request you to revert the protection too. Seeking your cooperation at the deletion review also. Sorry if bothering you. Extolmonica (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this??? Now see what I said to him at his IP page: User_talk:70.178.71.123. I wish this article would just DIE already! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OHTHANKGAWD!!!CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased albums

I've been considering starting a WikiProject to clean up the "unreleased album" category (I'm finding it's definitely going to take a group effort). If you might be interested, I've started trying to write it up here. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inglewood Problem

I have just created an article for Inglewood, Virginia. Then, I discovered there are two Inglewoods in that state, in separate counties. Should I separate and make articles: Inglewood, Mecklenburg, Virginia and Inglewood, Rockingham, Virginia? Making a disambig at Inglewood, Virginia wouldn't be helpful as there's a disambig at Inglewood, so it'd be a disambig for a disambig. -WarthogDemon 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Youth United

Hi, my article Youth United was deleted this time by stifle. There was no point in deleting the article, as review was going on, and each recommendation was based on earlier deletion criteria. None of them replied after 9 reliable sources were cited. Minimaki replied on my talk page "Same, as I already was watching the DRV discussion.. but since you added additional sources since my last comment, it makes sense, so thanks anyway". I dont't know I am being troubled after doing everything in accordance with wiki policies. 9 sources are not enough to be taken as reliable third party coverage? Let me know what can be done now. Thanks Extolmonica (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consider reading Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_10 Extolmonica (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your prod got removed. I've listed it at AfD here. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orange Mike, Hope these contracts count as refferences: http://www.the-skyrockets.com/The_SkyRockets/Agreements/Pages/SkyRockets_Site_Album.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherif Mansour (talkcontribs) 12:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Spitzer built the largest apartment building in New York City as well as several landmark 30+ story buildings in New York City. If you want to delete the article please use the normal afd process rather than speedily deleting it. Americasroof (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message on my talk page. If you want to delete the article nominate it for an afd and let it be discussed. Bernard is the topic of a book and countless articles. Don't try to circumvent the process. We've had some pleasant conversations in the past so I'm surprised at how adamant you are. Americasroof (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam tag

Thanks for notifying me. Can you remove the talk page? (Talk:Film Festival SCENECS). Thanks. Cbdorsett (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability of Jellyfish.com

Hi, there. I removed the notability tag because it's notable not because of its size but because of its new way of implementing CPA and the pending patent on that, and that Microsoft bought the company only because of that, and for improving Live Search.

It's also midly relevant that it raised $5 million dollars and a $1 million dollars on a short time, which got mentioned on two or three paper bussiness journals from Milkwaukee and Winsconsin. The purchase was mentioned on PcWorld, analyzed on eWeek's Microsot Watch, and mentioned on lots of places.

Launch was mentioned on the online version of Wall Street Journal, too. That and the other sources should satisfy the need for secondary sources on WP:CORP#Primary_criterion .

It's also notable for being the first site using only CPA.

I removed the citations needed because of the sources added.

I also updated Cost_per_action to include Jellfish and mentions to other companies that I found with them.

If you still think it's not notable enough, then feel free to nominate for deletion so other editors can opinate --Enric Naval (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tags and for using a prod instead of a speedy deletion. I would try to address the issues, but I feel that I my editing abilities don't reach to redacting the article better, so I'll leave it up to other editors to solve the mess I made improve the article. I'll leave it on my watchlist for the moment --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
was going to put a comment here, but i'll put instead on the article talk page so other editors can see it when looking at the article --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheNerds.net Deletion

Can you please explain/help me as to why our page wasn't relevant? We are simply trying to create our Wiki page. Thanks --Tshizzle (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshizzle (talkcontribs) 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle (speedy deletion)

my mistake- thanks for noticing earlier than i did. Exacerbation (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wall China Adoption

Hello, and my apolgies for the lack of communication. This is my first attempt to post any information to Wikipedia. I have rewritten the text for Great Wall China Adoption organziation to be unbiased and unaffiliated, please let me know what parts need more editing. Thank you. - Justin

AN thread

Hi, just a note to let you know a thread has been opened about yourself at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Orangemike (talk · contribs) is making inappropriate use of the hardblock. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of hardblock

Hi I've noticed that you've been hardblocking accounts lately for simply having names that you perceive as promotional. The hardblock is intended for cases where it is obvious that the user is ignoring the username policy, and in the case of names that are simply promotional, this isn't obvious. Please in the future just use the softblock (allow account creation), as many of these type of users are legitimate editors. Also, I apologize for bringing this up on WP:AN without addressing you first.--Urban Rose 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Tinsley Advertising

Hey Orange Mike, Tinsley Advertising is a real advertising agency here in Miami, Fl.

It is not spam or self promotion. It is no different than any of the other advertising agencies already approved on wikipedia such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroch or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martin_Agency or even our neighbors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Porter_and_Bogusky

Please explain this procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megageox (talkcontribs) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna fight you (you do some good work); but notability is not contagious. Having a famous customer doesn't make you famous. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that the company probably isn't notable, but all that's required to defeat a CSD:A7 deletion is a mere claim of notability. This low standard is intended to ensure that only the most clear-cut cases are speedied. There is a claim there (having some famous customers), so a speedy isn't on. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 09:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you just do a Google Search on "Tinsley Advertising" you will see many of the mainstream press (ex: Business Week) that are references. Here are a couple (and more can be found in the Hype section of their site): http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00EFDE1738F93AA2575BC0A96F958260 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Feb_4/ai_53703115 http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/marketing-advertising-overview/6666685-1.html http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/4191688-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megageox (talkcontribs) 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, WP:EL encourages links to Hulu. Consider:

  • What should be linked, #2: An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. For the type of media that Hulu hosts (film and television, mostly) Hulu usually is the only place on the internet that lawfully hosts a copy of the work. Yes, it's commercial, but for the same reason, no non-commercial website can host a copy of the work, at least not for another 70 years or so before the copyright runs out.
  • Now consider the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria. It passes them all. Hulu provides a unique resource, and will be reliable over the long term. The site is primarily to promote not sell works, has a low level of ads compared to live TV, and doesn't require registration (except for R-rated stuff).
  • Finally, I don't get a penny from Hulu or from NBC-Universal. I'm just doing this because my philosophy of Wikipedia is that it is useless without proof of sources. Citing the original material makes Wikipedia credible. --M@rēino 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your reasoning, but see your points. To me, this fails the "objectionable amounts of advertising" test. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with SciFi writers of color

Help! You were so helpful before. I was hoping that you could help me again. Since it seems that Wikipedia is using "Science fiction" as an umbrella term to include "Speculative fiction". I think that maybe the category "Speculative fiction writers of color" should to be changed to "Science fiction by writers of color" and the category "Speculative fiction novels by writers of color" to "Science fiction by writers of color" ("Walter Mosley's Futureland should be here, but because it is a collection of short stories it is being left out.) First is my assertion correct and second, how do I do this without going into every book. Is there a better way? --Booksellergirl (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! I think I got it all done --Booksellergirl (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to attend WisCon, but it's a problem of to many Cons to little money. I just gave up my ComicCon money for a Rent Party for a friend. Maybe next year I'll go. WisCon sounds amazing! --Booksellergirl (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your continued support. It means a lot to me. This Kevin guy seems a bit like a close-minded jerk. I'm glad that there are people out here like you guarding the hen house, too ;o) Let's hope the that the category doesn't get deleted. I've been telling the guys over at Carl Brandon that we need to get on the ball with this or we will disappear. It seems that I was more prophetic than I realized. There has been a suggestion of a Carl Brandon Wiki. We'll see how that goes. --Booksellergirl (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HA! You gave me my first laugh of the day! This just goes to show something. American may not be what it should be, but its not what it was. We may do some really stupid things sometimes, but we are capable of growth. This place is still worth fighting for. Be well. --Booksellergirl (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paying Attention to the Words in an Article

I made an edit in error to an already erroneous statement, but you merely reverted my edit and left the original erroneous statement in there. This is highly unusual as the change you made left the false information. For the future, please remember to read the full article instead of rushing off to eagerly post patronizing boilerplates on people's talk pages about their own errors. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Blue Danube (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was wrong, I apologize in full here and on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I will apologize for my tongue-in-cheek. :D Blue Danube (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orange Mike, Hope these contracts count as refferences: http://www.the-skyrockets.com/The_SkyRockets/Agreements/Pages/SkyRockets_Site_Album.html Mike Why was the Article Deleted? Significance - Egypts first Rock Band (1957), as for proof We have scaned contracts (see Link) with major Hotels Casinos and Clubs in Egypt at the time. The Article itself was witten by the Band, actually everything that was written on their site AND the wiki article was done with their consent & backed by Documented evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherif Mansour (talkcontribs) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of FrancineSchill

I unblocked her, as she was never warned and was likely unaware of Wikipedia policy or guidelines on External Links. I also left a stern warning directing her to the appropriate policies. Please remember, when blocking new users, give them ample warnings and opportunity to learn from their mistakes. Reverting a few more times is a smaller problem than is losing a potential editor because they were "bitten" unfairly. At leats give them a friendly note before blocking! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely true, and it now seems the message has been recieved. We can always re-block her if she starts again. The ball is in HER court now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Paul Cadmus page

I saw no reason for your deletion of what appears to be a constructive, acceptable link in the external links section, and you didn't have an edit summary or note on the discussion page, so I reverted it. My mind is open and I'm more than willing to discuss it. Noroton (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I've reviewed it now and, without any COI, I personally think it should stay, so that should be the end of it. It seems to me it would help if some kind of edit summary, say "removed as per WP:EL", would help. If I have time, I might go over some of that user's edits and review them to see if the added material is useful in each case, but if I do, it will be a slow decision based on whether each edit improves the individual article. That should get around any spam problems and help the 'pedia. I've got no problem with your having removed them. Noroton (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Looking at the context of that quote over at WP:SPAM it seems to me it sounds more like advice than a hard and fast rule. (And we all know plenty of people around here who are pushing their off-Wiki agendas; almost all of those agendas worse than this one.) Given the circumstances here, it seems to me that if you can get Artand to make some specific pledges about following policy and note that he'll be watched, then the encyclopedia would benefit. I tend to be optimistic about newbies who mess up in the beginning. As I said, I'm willing to be available if he wants advice. I'm not an admin and couldn't unblock him in any event. Your call. Noroton (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're more familiar about this kind of thing than I am. I left another comment on Artand's talk page to clarify. Noroton (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa - I don't know what I was thinking of. I'm now suitably chastened. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike would these do? http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/06/10/cairo_station_1958_review.shtml "With its tense score, contrasting performances of Chahine (twitchy and tightly coiled) and Rostom (sexy but cruel) and audacious moments of formal brilliance (Chahine even slots in a musical be-bop interlude from "Mike and the Skyrockets"), "Cairo Station" is a cinematic triumph." http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=8339 "Kelada grew up in Egypt where he would sing in a rock and roll band called the Skyrockets." http://www.egy.com/people/97-10-04.shtml "The Skyrockets at the Nileside Casino al-Shagarra and seen eating probably delicious fool'n tamia sandwiches in the 1960s." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherif Mansour (talkcontribs) 21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletation of westnet?

hello, i am trying to add westnet, you added speedy delation, citying "nn corp" it is a significant company so please let it hang on . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlines (talkcontribs) 00:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? i did a good theres tons of sources, regardless i just added it , still putting references, not everything on wiki is instantly sourced and added. give it sometime. not everyone is born on wiki knows how to instantly put everything. i hope u understand and i do understand that you instantly check thigns for their notablity. a quick google searched looks very notable.

fido is also a subsidy of rogers i dont know what the deal is. this is a canadian company not american so you may not of heard ofi t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberlines (talkcontribs) 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you deleted this article while I was clarifying the context. After uploading the new version, I undeleted the history for attribution purposes. Just letting you know - Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, there was an arbitration request on episode articles recently here [2], the conclusion says
It says that there is no consistent precedent or dealing with notability of this sort of articles, so I advice you to be extra-careful on making editions --Enric Naval (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Christopher, you don't remove the deletion notice yourself, what you do is adding a {{hangon}} template below it, so it won't get deleted while you improve the article --Enric Naval (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I not remove the deletion notice myself? I was only vaguely aware of the arbitration issue however so thank you. I do not believe it is relevant as the page was deleted as nonsense (arguably true at the time) but I do not think my last version could be described as such. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the template says that you shouldn't, for a start. This way of doing things probably originated at {{db-reason}}, the father template from where {{db-nonsense}} was created from. It probably comes from some discussion on some admin noticeboard, but I can't find references for it.
The removal could also be considered uncivil. A more proper procedure (but still not totally correct) would adding "hangon", then changing the article and *then* removing the tag if there has been substantial changes, while leaving a message on the talk page explaining why it is notable meets the notability criteria or why it's not nonsense, so other editors won't label it again with the same tag. A totally correct procedure would be improving the article, and then convince the editor that put up the tag to remove it, or convince someone else to do it because of it no longer being adequate, but that's not always possible. Deleting the notice with no explanation anywhere not even on the edit summary would surely be considered uncollaborative, specially if the article is not improved.
(also, consider placing {{stub}} on your new articles so this doesn't happen so often. There is a ton of more specific stubs at Category:Stub_categories that you can use. Other people interesed on the stub type can then see the article on the thematic category and help to improve the article) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably use this one on next article {{PowerRangers-stub}}. When added to the article, it will automagically add it to Category:Power_Rangers_stubs --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, this editor was not the one that created the article, so he could remove the tag with no problem. My bad, I'll pay more attention to the history next time --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(P.D.: well, at least the stub advice still stands. A stub template on an article can attract editors interested on the theme that will be happy to improve the article, and it can be added to an article created by someone else) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Asghar Mohammadi FAZEL, 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) 09:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was about to remove the csd tag when you deleted it. I don't think it's advertising, since the article talks about a specification by GSM Association, which itself is a trade association and wouldn't be advertising anything. The only thing that to me could sound like marketingese is a direct quote, and presented as such. Would you mind if I undeleted the article? Thanks. - Bobet 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreignness

I've tagged it as needing translation and am just going to do some googling to see if I can find any English information on the topic. If I can't get anywhere with it (at the moment I don't even know what language it is - presume something Scandinavian) I would consider a {{db-foreign}} but I'd like to give it a chance of life first. nancy (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnin' For That speedy declined

Hey there Mike, I declined this particular speedy (even though when I see your name in page history, I usually just delete as you seem to always have them right). You said in page history that it was taken from a website and was spammy. Fixable, IMHO. Was it copyvio though? I'll delete based on that alone. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't have a problem with an AFD, but if the assertions made in the article are true (future film, produced by Beastie Boy, etc), and verifiable, I might surprise myself and !vote keep. (and I am by no means even close to being an inclusionist) Thanks for understanding my speedy decline though, either way. Too bad about the article creator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I am so glad our world has come to that. She's a published author (whom can be found internationally through Amazon.com) and she's not known enough because only her "official site" is offered as a reference. I own her book and thought her worthy of recognition and hoped others could learn of her written works through wikipedia. But apparently the site is not worthy of the critical acclaim it has recieved (I have had friends who've attempted to contribute to Wikipedia to help make it better and have been treated with this "warm welcome" ie "speedy deletion." When you work hard to write up an article with reference that sounds half-way decent and even intelligent and it gets deleted because it's not "notable enough" despite local and national popularity it kind of turns the stomach.) Carrymeaway (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are they ever to attain notability if people can't spread the word through popular sources (such as wikipedia)? Carrymeaway (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore preventing a curious web-surfer from looking up information on someone they may have heard a snip-it of and want to learn more. My personal opinion; it's bull-shit. Carrymeaway (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial literature

[moved from above]

Hi Mike, I just left a note at the CFD for Category:Controversial literature explaining why I don't think it should be handled as a Speedy delete. Can you reverse your deletion and allow the full CFD to run its course? Cgingold (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Mike -- I was hoping for a reasonably expeditious response. Possibly you didn't notice my question due to the other comment that was left after mine. Anyway, I'd still appreciate a reply. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilove

With all the "wikilove" that vandals have done to your userspace lately, you deserve some real Wikilove. Royalbroil 03:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Guerilla Talk

i was not the original author of this "article" Did my best to try and figure out how to make it acceptable. Anyway is there a service where wiki's get paid to do this so i can get published Henslee57 (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]