User talk:Orangemike

User preference tweaks

Hi. I made that tutorial! Located at User:Quiddity/User style customization tutorial. Most of the examples have a screenshot, to demonstrate the output. It's still a bit more complicated, at a glance, than I would like; but I'm not sure what could be trimmed or simplified. (It needs a screencast!)

See if anything in there interests you, and let me know if it's useful, or if anything is still too obtuse. Ta. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To Mike Orange: Thanks for helping me get started

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction concerning my desire to create a Wikipedia article about Pariyatti, the nonprofit publishing house & bookstore where I have been working & volunteering for the past five years. I still have the feeling that Pariyatti is a borderline case - - I've found a few brief references to it in Wikipedia articles about the Buddhist Publication Society (BPS), S. N. Goenka, and Godwin Samaratne. I will continue to search the Web for other, more lengthy references to establish sufficient Notability to warrant an article about Pariyatti.

Would it be appropriate to link the reference to Pariyatti in Wikipedia's article about BPS to www.pariyatti.org ? In addition to publishing Pariyatti editions of some BPS books, Pariyatti has distribution rights for all BPS books in North America.

Pariyatti also has distribution rights for books published by the Pali Text Society (PTS) throughout North and South America and the Caribbean. Would it be appropriate to add a mention of that fact to the Wikipedia article about PTS? And could that mention be linked to www.pariyatti.org ?

A few bookstores are mentioned by name, with a brief description, in the Wikipedia article "Independent Bookstore". I hope to get Pariyatti included in that article. I'm still researching the best way to make that happen.

Thanks again for helping me get started.

By the way, I was a writer/editor for 25 years, and am confident of my ability to write in a neutral tone.

Starting in 1996 and for the next five years I was responsible for creating and maintaining www.ibm.com/storage. That's ancient history now, but I think I still have the ability to write for the Web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carljs27 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:CORP closely. Dozens of passing mentions, links to books published by the PTS, etc., do not add up to the substantial coverage of Pariyatti in and of itself. Remember, notability is not contagious: one does not become notable by publishing notable works or notable authors, or selling to notable clients, or working for notable employers. (And no, putting in the links you suggest would not be acceptable; it would be spamlinking, a form of promotion we strictly forbid.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What is Wrong with Linking to Images open to the public online?

What is objectionable about posting a link to an image file that is pertinent to a wikipedia article? Wikipedia articles contain hundreds of thousands of links to various source materials containing both words and pictures. The reader can see for himself or herself the owner of the picture inasmuch as the link directs the reader to the owner's posting that the owner chooses to make available to the public. The picture is not being moved or copied to wikipedia. The reader is just informed as to where to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Jeff Yo (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We need actual illustrations in the article, not links which may or may not break down the next day. Our manual of style clearly states that illustrations added to articles should be actual images made available in Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons, not links to images stored outside of Wikimedia projects. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Three things I need to discuss

1. Britney_Stevens is the sister of Whitney_Stevens. It's listed on Whitney_Stevens that she is listed under the categories Panamanian_Jews and Panamanian_pornographic_film_actors. Since Britney_Stevens is she her sister and a pornstar; should she be listed under those 2 categories as well?

2. Qumunity is an article I want to create. It fits under the category LGBT_culture_in_Vancouver becuase Qmunity is Vancouver's centre for gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people. I think there should be article for it. Here's the link: http://www.qmunity.ca/

3. Naturally Autistic is another article I want to create because it fits under Autism_related_organizations and It's been around since 1995 and it is run a couple in Gibsons,_British_Columbia and I have a link for it: http://www.naturallyautistic.com/founders/297/

Please let me know about doing these articles. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Misclick?

Hey Orange Mike. I just discovered at the help desk that a post of mine from yesterday was not only removed by you but rolled back. May I assume this was a misclick you didn't notice?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Hey, I was hoping you could block IP 164.100.153.254, as you can tell from their history its filled with many vandalism events over the last year. Thanks Passionless (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ron Holloway notice

Please read my last comment on the discussion you began about the Ron Holloway article. Looking at the original stub, which Holloway claimed was an innacurate one begun by fans, I found User:T. Anthony. I was trying to find other editors who'd be willing to help with it, and he was the only one. Holloway was mad that I agreed your assessment was correct, and so took it personally, writing an email re: spelling mistakes I made. I was pissed & told him so. I continued editing in good faith though, but suddenly they were all suspect. Glad the first editor reviewed my edits, and found no POV. I apologized for being offended, let it go, and left a section to explain refs on the talk page. Today, there's a newer section placed above it, entitled, "In My Defense"! Something should be done there, but not by me. I want my life back. Thanks.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike, if an editor has actually contacted the subject of an article (who also is editing Wikipedia, then we may have issues of off-Wiki harassment. The moment any editor takes that step outside of Wikipedia's boundaries, they stir up a gigantic hornet's nest. I don't think we have the block in the right place here ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins notified me of this because I declined Lonsax's unblock request. The WP:NLT block appears valid, as Lonsax writes that he contacted the police about Leahtwosaints's alleged emails to him. Apart from that, I am not sure that we can do anything about any offwiki issues these two users might have. But in view of the apparent personal and possible legal conflict between Leahtwosaints and the article's subject I strongly suggest that Leahtwosaints stop editing the article per WP:COI, enforced by block if necessary. Lonsax can continue to signal any BLP concerns about the article through the WP:OTRS system via the "Contact Wikipedia" link.  Sandstein  14:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

See my corresponding request at User talk:Leahtwosaints#Your conflict with Ronsax.  Sandstein  14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's unreasonable at all - The key issue as it relates to the block is the conflict between Ronsax and Leahtwosaints. If they both back away, I think the situation can be defused. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any desire to edit Holloway's article as things stand, if this is given a little time and there's an absolute end to the raving to every editor who might listen from User:Ronsax. I haven't commented on all the various issues (many untrue) that Holloway is now making about me. I will say this: my questions to User:Wasted Time R were to find the most accurate way to represent Holloway's presence in what he calls Dizzy Gillespie's final quintet. That isn't disputed, but the original text appeared to sound like all the performers were on equal level, whereas I had not seen any reference billing "The Gillespie Quintet", for example. I was trying to ascertain the difference between whether he was a band member or a sideman. I was trying to be as factual as possible, in case the subject was exaggerating his importance in the ensemble, which I asked Holloway about. Frankly, I think it's unwise for the subject of the article to be the primary editor- or to exert pressure and influence upon wording, references, etc. With WP:COI and WP:OWN issues, how can the next Wikipedian who attempts to edit the article be sure their edits will not be considered as personal attacks? I don't think the article could advance given the POV of the subject. It's a veritable hornet's nest. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that Ronsax has the full right to call the police due to off-wiki harassment - and multiple e-mails, phone calls, etc are harassment. He's not threatening to call a lawyer due to something that happened on-Wiki, or take any form of legal action - he called the cops due to continued contact, pointe finale. We admins call the cops in certain situations of harassment (i.e. violence) too. Honestly, it's clearly Leah who should be blocked in this case ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also feel User:Ronsax has full right if he receives any harrassment, but I responded to his email. I was not agressive, I did not use foul language. I was annoyed -- 2 years of work and seriously coaching him over 2 years, on the phone, in Wikipedia, and emails uncounted. He wrote me an email, that was very critical email. I responded the same way as I did earlier to Orange Mike when he sent me a note for wiping clean a foul comment (from some vandal) on the Ron Holloway talk page. I didn't consider myself to be harrassing him. I told Ron if he wanted to file charges, it was fine. I have nothing to hide in my email. He never left a note on my talk page to say he felt harrassed! Just because I'm not contacting every editor who notices all of this, doesn't mean I'm guilty of harrassment. I want nothing more to do with him. If he wants to edit his page, it's up to you. But I live 15 minutes away from him! Were his allegations true, I'm sure the police would have arrived days ago. What could I have gained? The email is available to anyone in the proper forum to check out. I've edited here peaceably for over 3 years, and not the slightest problem with others until Ron Holloway re-appeared in my life a couple weeks ago. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not an admin review of any sort, but I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Review_of_NLT_Block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input at the above mentioned discussion. It appears that because I didn't want to splatter things all over the Wikipedia, that I am the scrutinized one here. I am without words to describe my shock. Is there any way I can forward the email I sent to anyone? This is insane, now. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page, Hartlepool

I have undone your 'cancellation' or 'reversal' of an 'update' by myself a day ago in the form of the removal of what is now completely irrlevant material originally provided by myself some time ago on this Talk Page. You tell me this should have been done by 'striking out' ('strikeout'). To 'strike out' is what I thought I had done by removing it in the only way of which I am aware, other than complete removal. I make this clear in my editing explanation and ask you to provide an explanation, please, of what you mean by 'strikeout'. Thank you in advance. Peter Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.7.94 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:Strikethrough ... and I have done it properly on your behalf. It's the same as any Word Processor: <s>text to be struck</s> will become text to be struck (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Run it as you wish. I have added my own explanation which I hope you will leave in place. Peter Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.42.162 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Advertising deletion

Hi Orange Mike,

You deleted my post yesterday. Is there anyway to place that content in my sandbox for editing? I didn't really figure that with a deletion I wouldn't be able to get back to the original user space build of it.

Also, could you please explain to me why any of the other 400 advertising agencies listed here are more notable than the one I submitted? In doing a quick review of their inclusions there doesn't appear to be anything different from the post I made.

Thanks in advance. Loyd

--Lwsellersjr (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As to deletion: done; see User:Lwsellersjr/Lewis. As to the rest: see WP:CORP and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As an aside: advertising agencies, based on my experience here, have an industry-specific problem, in that they labor under the delusion that they are notable to the broader world, if they are known within the industry to their peers and competitors (at least in their region or market niche). The idea that the rest of the planet neither knows nor cares about who has the media buying account for Fred's Hamburgers in the Upper Midwestern U.S. region is apparently entirely alien to them. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the two wikilinks you provided. I would like to reference WP:CORP with 'When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.' Demonstrable effects on culture, society and economies is the business that advertising agencies are in. That's pretty much all they do, for the good or bad of it. Building notability for their clients is paramount to their own as their notability is held within the industry in the form of accolades and awards. Which have been cited.

While the general public may not have an interest in advertising agencies, successful agencies certainly are notable within their industry, to the clients that are considering hiring them, to the employees that work there, and to prospective employees. The standard being applied to Lewis Advertising seems to be a bit subjective, as this agency has a similar record of awards and success to others that are being listed.

--Lwsellersjr (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"successful agencies certainly are notable within their industry, to the clients that are considering hiring them, to the employees that work there, and to prospective employees" - that's utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia; see WP:USEFUL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. As to the other, I refer you again to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; out of the 3.5 million articles in Wikipedia, a lot of them are about non-notable topics, but nobody's gotten around to purging them yet - that does not justify the addition of yet another non-notable topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The presence of 400 advertising agencies on Wikipedia has more to do with the persistence of ad agencies doing what they do well: advertise. Unfortunately, few would survive an articles for deletion debate, and many were written by editors with a conflict of interest, which you clearly share. Having reviewed the draft, I see no evidence that the firm meets either the general notability standard or wp:corp. In general, notability demands at least two or three articles written in independent media of at least regional (as in several states) or national standing, focusing on the subject. This is an objective way of judging inclusion, as opposed to the argument you've made above, which is entirely subjective. This is not a slight to the company, it is just a simple way to determine whether a worldwide encyclopedia should have an article on the subject. Acroterion _(talk) 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I can see this is an exercise in futility, as is resistance... I will leave you folks to it. I rest assured that I will always have a reference online to look up things much more notable than a company that has been toiling in the landscape of American business for over 40 years. You know, like a featured item today, a list of Star Trek the Next Generation episodes. I am sure if this were a time capsule that would offer more detailed narrative of our endeavors as humans. I see there is a movement to reduce the relevance of the site as a reference tool for the masses, well except in the case of second-rate sci-fi, publicly held Behemoths and the nearest Medieval Times.
--Lwsellersjr (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that in the broader scheme of things, ST:TNG episodes are seen by more people and make much more impact on human life than an obscure local advertising firm. I'm not saying that this is a good thing; but it's reality. Acroterion has already explained, quite eloquently, the reasoning employed in this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

improper deletion of uploaded image

Hello Orangemike. You have deleted one of my uploaded images improperly. This is my first article for wikipedia, and I understand that I have several days to comply with the non-free fair use rationale guidelines, which I did not understand. I am attempting to rectify this now, but I do not wish to have to re-upload my images, as this is very time consuming. Please desist. I am working on it. Regards, E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: main discussion at User talk:Acather96. Even if images are deleted, they can easily be undeleted when appropriate permissions have been submitted and approved per the process at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

IP block

I saw that you indef. blocked a shared IP, for the first time. I think that it is an error (V.o.A). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I remembered all except the IP 67.230.144.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Here is Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mike Cooper (voiceover artist)

Hello Orangemike, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mike Cooper (voiceover artist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you really need to template a fellow admin about a declined speedy asking them to review the speedy criteria?! – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes? I'm far too lazy to write a personal message. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Barn star!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I think you've been doing a marvelous job tagging articles for deletion. I really think you deserve this. Good job! :) Endofskull (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for stepping in on the article Algernon Capell, 2nd Earl of Essex. I appreciate your help.
Meg E. McGath (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Handle this?

Not sure with this one. User:RobertHillier1972 - a mainspace article in userspace using the {{newpage}} tag so it won't be deleted. Tag even states in bold "This template is not for User namespace articles." Seem to be a duplicate of Abu Dhabi Police, which was created by the same user at a later date. It's your call. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Aakhri Chunauti

LOL. I love your idea of "a bit".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate to generalize, but a lot of articles on Indian TV shows have this "mammoth plot dump" problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about risk

It seems that you attempted to nominate List of books about risk for deletion. You transcluded it onto the log for the 11th but never tagged the article or created the AFD page. Might this have been a script glitch? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

deleading L.A. Galerie - Lothar Albrecht

Dear Mr. "Orangemike", you deleaded my article about L.A. Galerie - Lothar Albrecht, saying that is advertising. Well, there are many dozends article of big US or UK galleries. So this is no promotion? The true notes about a well respected contemporary art gallery in Germany is to be delated, the big money galleries from your country are fine. Double standard I would call that. Sincerly Lothar Albrecht —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.162.251 (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Ross Holmes

Hi Mike,

You have flagged the Thomas Ross Holmes article for deletion. I have been working on editing the article with some of the other administrators and hope to bring it up to standard. You mentioned that the references were not about Mr Holmes, but the external links (which I hope prove notability) are about him. I have been advised, and plan to edit today, that these external links should be references to actual copy in the body of the article. All the amendments I intend to make are on the talk page of the article. If there is anything else that you can advise I do, please let me know.

Thanks

Bensomersethow (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)