User talk:Orangemike

Cashel Dennehy School of Irish Dance

Hi Mike,

Not sure if you remember me, about a year back (maybe even longer?) I had tried to create a Wikipedia article for CDSID. I'm back to Wikipedia, having spent the past few months working on random articles and learning the ropes of WP:RCP, specifically patrolling in the New Pages section. Which I do believe I've seen you on a few times. Either way, I'm rambling. One of my big projects was re-vamping the article Scooter Braun. I managed to get the article, to what I think is semi-acceptable quality (emphasis on the semi). And I'm going to push through another round of editing soon to see if I can finally get that article up to snuff.

What I would appreciate from you is if you could possibly take a look-see at the article and let me know if you detect anything chronically wrong with it (i.e the way it's written, facts presented). I am aware of the large lack of citations in the article, this I plan to correct in the next big swing of editing. I would like to get an Admin's perspective on it. Cheers! Bped1985 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a BLP which is pathetically lacking in references (and tweets are not reliable sources). I did fix a couple of references, providing the vital things you omitted, like authors and dates of publication. I probably won't contribute a lot, because I find people like this Braun rather obnoxious and frankly hate to waste my time on them. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya I was not the one who put that Twitter cite up there. Because I knew it would get taken down. But heres the glitch I have with that. I have been told by multiple persons that Twitter is a reliable source, and an equal amount that it isn't. Personally, I believe that it is. Scooter's Twitter account is what is called "Verified" by Twitter itself. Verification is a guarantee made by Twitter that the person tweeting is actually the person they say they are. In other words, it's a guarantee made by Twitter, Inc that they are not an imposter. Getting verified is not an easy process by any means. So my question is, how does that make it un-reliable? Bped1985 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-published source; the subject of an article is notoriously not a reliable source on themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That settles that then... Thanks for cluing me in! Cheers Bped1985 (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Sockppupet

Since this is only one edit and only based on WP:DUCK, I thought I'd mention a possible sockpuppet here: Special:Contributions/Katrina_blueventures to you since you blocked the original here: Special:Contributions/Blueventures CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Independent Green Party of Virginia

Orangemike you have blocked me from using and editing Independent Green Party of Virginia site.

Please remove that block. Clearly as a delegate to the Democratic Party convention in 2004, you have a conflict of interest (COI).

Colfer2, and Dirmies, two other democratic political operatives continue to vandalize the site, and I wish to have the opportunity to correct the errors.

Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.233.238 (talk)

QI MACROS

I apologize for my accidental use of all caps in my previous discussion about my article. I'd like to know how to 'userfy' my article QI MACROS so that I don't have to start from scratch. It should be under my user id smarthu.

I also believe, from reading other posts, that there is some confusion about some software products being included on sofware lists (such as the discussion above about Agile Software and its exclusion from an already existing list). For example, Minitab (a competitor of QI MACROS) has its own page and is listed under List of Statistical Software. There are many other similar packages listed under this site and so it seems conflicting and confusing to include some and not others.

I would like to work with my original article to include sources (books, interviews, citations, etc.) and so would like to get it 'userfied', but seem to be having trouble finding the correct admin to do this for me. Any guidance is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarthu (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Golden Monkey

With respect to the Golden Monkey stamp realizations and image at Asian philately please see http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90782/7251554.html It has also been sold in other Asian auctions at values approaching those in the article. I don't follow your WP:COATRACK reasoning at all. Perhaps you could explain what other area of interest or viewpoint is involved. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Golden Monkey (stamp) is notable, it should be the subject of its own article. Instead, it was awkwardly shoehorned into an article on Asian philately, taking up way too large a percentage of the latter article. Simply create a whole new article on the Golden Monkey, just as you would on say the British Guiana 1c magenta. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is needed, but really there isn't much to say about the stamp. The story is the starring role it is playing in the stamp trade in China which is the subject of the article. Perhaps that is the misunderstanding, the article is about the stamp market, not about stamps. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The story is about the market for this particular stamp. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the picture chosen in one article about a Hong Kong auction was of the auctioneer in front of a full sheet of this stamp. That's why it belongs in the article, although I can't justify a fair use image of a sheet or of that image of the auctioneer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Lawline Louis J. Posner

Hi Mike. Re Louis J. Posner and other articles, ff you take a look at this user's tp and all the final warnings, I think it's time to consider a block. Ideas? --Kudpung (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sam Darcy

Do you think it's worth an SPI for that extraordinary cluster of at least a dozen SPAs on this article, or shall we just wait and see if they all start to complain now I've deleted it? JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pls see WP:HD#Should I report a sock?. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Eureka (CDP), Wisconsin

Please undo your rename of the Eureka (CDP), Wisconsin article to Eureka, Winnebago County, Wisconsin. It should be listed in Category:Census-designated places in Wisconsin but under what name? There are ongoing discussions at Talk:Eureka, Wisconsin about moving articles and disambiguation of 2 Eureka, Wisconsin articles. Please come join them and give your input. Eurekanative (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

UW-Milwaukee alumni Wisconsin legislators

I have been reverting Admeinw's edits of including Wisconsin legislators in the list of UW-Milwaukee alumni. I explained to Admeinw that Wisconsin legislators are notable and therefore can be included in the list. That is not helping. I am going around in circles with that and the Eureka, Wisconsin naming issue. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ted Hsu

Hello Orangemike. I'm new to wikipedia but I want to learn! I made an article about Ted Hsu, Ontario Politician.At first it got deleted with mention to A7. My second draft also got deleted, again with mention to A7. While my second draft was not high quality I thought It explained subject significant in accordance with guidelines and did have references. Could what specifically was wrong with the article so I can address it ? Thank you. EDIT: sorry my username is ThyreallStupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.191.214 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you still failed to provide any assertion of notability which would justify an article about him in an encyclopedia. Candidates for public office are not inherently notable; he's only published a handful of papers as a scientist; he's head of a non-notable small organization: where is the notability? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Rainbow Cadenza

Your name was mentioned on Talk:The Rainbow Cadenza today. Guy Macon 08:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Green (journalist)

You were quite correct to pull me up over my recent comments. I have withdrawn them. Ghostwords (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicolo Fonte

About a year a ago the Nicolo Fonte article was deleted, with some concerns about copyright infringement. The Houston Ballet is doing a new piece of his next year, and that warrants his inclusion in Wikipedia. How should we get him on the agenda for inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.193.67 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because the ballet is doing a piece of his, doesn't necessarily make him notable. You are welcome, of course, to make a request at Wikipedia:REQUEST#Topic areas in culture and fine arts, providing verifiable, reliable sources for everything you assert. (And who is "we", by the way?) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding an answer you gave at the new contributors help page

With regards to the examples you gave at Wikipedia:New_contributors'_help_page/questions#Personal_Conversations, would those not be considered primary sources, and still valid to use in Wikipedia? Although secondary sources are always preferred, primary sources may still be used to verify text in certain circumstances. Is that not true? -- œ^™ 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because they fail to be verifiable. "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia."--Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

SchnappeCo (talk · contribs)

This is to let you know that I have unblocked this user: his unblock request explains that this is a personal nickname, not a company name, a look at the internet seems to confirm that, and his contributions look serious - he is developing a formidable article in his userspace (so formidable that I looked up one of the references in Scholar just to make sure it is not a hoax). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Joel Rosenberg

Hi,

you told on Talk:Joel Rosenberg (science fiction author) that you knew Mr Rosenberg; do you know any news on his brushing with the Minnesota judicial system? Somebody tagged the paragraph about his arrest as being outdated.

Do you know how Mr Rosenberg's health is?

BTW, perhaps you also know whether it's a coincidence or whether it is true that Minneapolis is such a breeding-ground for good conservative science-fiction artists? Mike Nelson and MST3K also seem to be originating from Minneapolis, and at least Nelson seems to hold very conservative views.

Yours sincerely, -Ralf User1812011 23:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC) (European social-liberal nut-job, which makes me a right-wing nut-job for socialists and a left-wing nut-job for conservatives and economical-liberals - chose one) (ska Gernot von Hagen)

Joel's heath is OK; his legal troubles, I'm not up to date on. Minnesota is also a breeding ground for leftist (by U.S. standards) writers and artists, some of them from the more sane branches of Trotskyism (unlike Wisconsin, where we social democrats always outnumbered Trots) and others from agrarian radical roots. Joel is (I believe) originally from Eastern Canada somewhere, formerly living in NYC. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) (sca Inali of Tanasi, G.D.H.)

Re Refusal to un-delete page for Joe Conway

Hello Orange Mike.

You recently refused to un-delete the page for Joe Conway, and I just wanted to raise some points in relation to your refusal, and see what you think. First of all, forgive my amateurish inital arguments. As you undoubtedly guessed, I am something of a n00b.

While you are clearly correct to say that "Candidates are not inherently notable", wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of politicians mentions as criteria of notability: "Politicians who have held ... sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." This describes Joe Conway, who is an elected member of Tramore Town Concil and Waterford County Council. County Councils represent Ireland's highest level of local government.

The guidelines go on to state that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Joe Conway is certainly a major political figure. This page displays his immense popularity in his area, and the fact that he garnered the more votes than any other candidate in the 2009 local elections: http://electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?id=6436 Furthermore, this page shows that Joe Conway served as mayor of Tramore in the recent past. This is a town of "at least regional importance" in the Waterford region. http://www.waterfordcoco.ie/en/localauthorities/tramoretowncouncil/towncouncillors/joeconwaytramoretownmayor/

The guidelines also state that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" is key to achieving notability. A quick survey of the webistes of The Munster Express and the Waterford News and Star - the main local newspapers - show that Joe Conway receives frequent attention on local political issues, and has been involved in controversial and important local proposals.

I hope that this provides something approaching "more substantial evidence of actual notability". Let me know what you think! Thanks. PopOwl (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I just can't buy the argument that the mayor of Tramore, or a member of Waterford County Council, is notable enough to count. How many mayors of Waterford have articles? Neither Mary O'Halloran nor Mary Roche does. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

True enough, but could it not be said that the absence of pages for other candidates doesn't necessarily mean that Conway's page should be eliminated? I'd be more than happy to create pages for the current councillors who do not have pages, as I feel they all meet the standards set out in the notability guidelines I mentioned. In what respect do you feel they do not meet these standards? Furthermore, councillors of equal political importance and notability, in the Waterford constituency and elsewhere, have their own wikipedia pages, for example Councillor John Halligan. Of course, I would never suggest that pages such as John Halligan's be removed. But Halligan is a councillor, and a former mayor, and is of equal notoriety and relevance as Conway. What do you think? PopOwl (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Waterford is a far larger town than Tramore, and thus its mayor is more notable.

2. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is not considered a useful one; it may be deemed more an argument for deletion of the other article, than an argument for inclusion of this one.

3. The councillors as a class, like (say) their counterparts among our Milwaukee County supervisors, are not inherently notable, although you can usually find driblets of coverage of them in the local press. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that my understanding of the system of gevernment in Milwaukee is under-developed, but I am confident in suggesting that the role of Ireland's County Councils are far more significant in Ireland than the board of supervisors is in the US, certainly based on what I'm reading here on the internet. As I mentioned, city and county councils are the higest level of local representation in Ireland, more akin to state legislatures than boards of supervisors. Don't take my word for it: check out Airteagal 28A of Bunreacht na hÉireann for proof. There are great differences in the scale and mechanics of politics in Ireland compared to the US: our system is not federalist like yours, and our representatives represent fewer people because are population is only a tiny fraction of yours in the US. This does not mean that councils and councillors are insignificant in the scheme of Irish politics.

Also "driblets of coverage" is not, I would submit, a fair characterisation of the coverage of county and city councillors in the local media. On the contrary, these elected representatives vote on matters of great local significance, which are routinely reported in the local media. I would invite you to look at these search results in our local paper for Councillor Conway to verify this, and to search for any other councillors equally. http://www.munster-express.ie/?s=joe+conway

There is no number of constituents specificied for notability in the wikipedia guidelines. Also, you should note that Waterford City is divided into three electoral wards, meaning that the number of constituents actually represented by city mayors is not much greater than the number represented by town mayors.

While I agree with you when you say that Councillors are not inherently notable, I would be hesitant to say that they are inherently non-notable. What do you think? PopOwl (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)7

Hi - I've been asked to comment here by PopOwl via email, and act as a neutral third-party. To be honest, I don't think notability is the core issue here for undeletion, as an AFD (see here ) found the article to not meet the notability criteria. Therefore, re-creation would be deletable on sight under G4 - as the page would be re-creation of material deleted/removed through a deletion discussion. If you really are convinced that the article can meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and can back this up with reliable sources, then you could create a draft in your userspace. You could do this at User:PopOwl/Joe Conway. Remember to tag it with {{Userspace draft}}, and when you're ready, submit it to WP:AFC for review. You can find an old copy of the article here, if you wish to retain it. Good luck and thanks for contributing :) Acather96 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

UKIP

I was attacking the author as he should not be trolling the page to ensure it suits his bias. UKIP wants EU withdrawal and that author had worked for the European Commission, supports adopting the Euro and wants further EU integration. I would kindly suggest that you ensure he does not comment or edit the article again, and someone else can approve pages, or I will be requesting mediation. Dunenewt (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Um

You cannot just bluntly delete a page if do not agree with it as you did to John J. Strauss. The common practice is adding a tag on it so more info can be added later. Undo you edit please. QuasyBoy 22:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a matter of "agreeing with" an article. The article lacked any assertion of notability, so as an admin I deleted it under the appropriate category: A7: article about subject in notable category without assertion or evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Strauss has number of notable credits to his name. He co-wrote a little film called There's Something About Mary and the latter two Santa Clause films and The Lizzie McGuire Movie, all box-office hits. I will add more references to it, the first draft was just a stub. Could you un-delete please. QuasyBoy 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Userfied to User:QuasyBoy/John J. Strauss so that you can get it ready for articlespace. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you will more references to it. :) QuasyBoy 22:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it good enough to go live again: User:QuasyBoy/John J. Strauss. QuasyBoy 22:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Traxsource: why have you deleted this while I am half way through re-editing?

This was removed when a stub, it has now been fleshed-out into much more info than before. So why has this been removed, even before a CSD has been applied, not being given enough time to finish editing it? Removal would seem as blatant favouritism if other sites of similar notability in the same field are allowed (rightly) to remain. For the record, I have no connection with the site. Can you please reinstate the page and give users more time to finish the job correctly. Jimthing (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why have you not responded? Jimthing (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I have a life? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This article was created three times, and each time there was nothing in the content to indicate that the subject was notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. I would suggest creating a draft article in a sandbox in your own userspace, and consulting other editors to see whether there is enough substance there to merit an article in articlespace. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Milikin archive

A major institution and a descriptive article. Showed some signs of promotional writing, but I took care of that. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a "whitewash Milikin" campaign going on, and I was trying to clean up some of that. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith

Thank you for sorting out that puzzle for me. However I do not understand why you felt it necessary to be rude, Cirt posted on my talk page "Your addition to Nils Melzer has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing". and wrote on the page he redirected Nils Melzer to - (remove circular redirect to the author (article added by IP deleted as copyvio). As an adminstrator he should understand the difference between deletion and removing an article, to me it was impossible to understand as the copyvio material had litterally disappeared! .93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; since it was a blatant copyright violation, I assumed that you understood what was going on, and felt you were being coy about it. (Hey, I committed a few copyright violations myself when I was just getting started here.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide proof that linking to legitimate media is "linkfarming"

Wikipedia cites thousands of media articles from the very same news sources you claim are "linkfarming." Please explain how including relevant links to legitimate local media sites goes against Wikipedia's rules.

The page you linked says nothing about linking to local media, and in fact it says links are appropriate when they provide context and further information about the subject in the article.

In addition, you ignored Tnxman307's threat to ban another user from editing, and you ignored the fact that Tnxman307 disregarded an e-mail regarding his deletions and chose a dictatorial approach instead of discussing the issue.

That is rude and uncivil, and so far it seems both of you are shining examples of the dense, rude Wikipedia editor stereotype. This behavior is the primary reason why casual editors are dissuaded from participating. Your time investment has nothing to do with whether your judgment is sound, and considering the fact that Wikipedia depends on these media outlets for its attribution system, your contention that linking them is "spam" and "linkfarming" is ridiculous and falls flat on its face.

Restore the links, and get some perspective.

Stormstrike (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC).

Care to take a look at Sheridan College

I have seen that you have an interest in ensuring corporate articles remain articles and not promotional tools. Care to take a look at the above article which has been heavily edited by an IP over the past few days? Some of the editing appears to be needed article improvement, but it seems to be moving heavily into promotional brochure territory as well. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please freeze or delete pages for Dr Scott Connelly & Darren Meade

Hey Orange, I haven't spoken to you in quite some time as I've not been as active on Wiki as I should. I wanted to let you know that while I had used the ID name Caliberfitness for a while, I didn't think about the ramification of using part of my business name for organizational purposes but I'm now using my real name from now on

In any event, I had edited both pages because these two individuals are currently in a lawsuit and have susquently vandalized each other's pages through their associates in addition to using their pages for promotional and advertising purposes by using do-it-yourself PR blogs and self-service references. None of the information given on Darren's site is verifiable content from an independent source and the same goes for the other.

I had marked Darren's page for deletion for this and did not mark Dr Connelly's because it was already cited for deletion. However I'm requesting both pages need to be either deleted or just frozen for the time being as it has been continued been abused by both parties.

I have no associations with either Connelly or Meade whatsoever and I have been for the most part have been a neutral party to which they can sort out their differences. MGoodrum (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Institute for New Economic Thinking

Hi Mike, your help regarding the think tank PR guys is very much appreciated. Could you maybe take a look at it again as I think the problem needs some further attention? Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Knopffabrik (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you maybe also restore Talk:Institute for Economic Thinking so that users see there were attempts of PR work and how conflicts of interest should be dealt with? Knopffabrik (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Trypophobia

I think it was a mistake to delete the Trypophobia article. Whether or not google scholar doesn't turn up information about Trypophobia is no indication of whether it exists or not. Frankly google scholar is a really terrible source of information on a lot of science related things, important or not. I can personally assure you it does exist, I feel seriously itchy and queasy when I see certain pictures of holes clustered together in a symmetrical way. That urban dictionary or some Oxford dictionary person invented the term in 2005 or so, doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Part of what I love about wikipedia is that many subjects that don't fit into 'official' encyclopedia because they're not high-brow enough, make it into wikipedia. That makes it hundred times more useful than regular encyclopaedias, Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia. Also, it is five years now since Trypophobia was invented to describe this sensation, it's not really a one day wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan2.0 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's not been written about at reasonable length in reliable sources, we don't cover it. End of discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems non-constructive. For one thing, that implies wikipedia itself is putting itself beneath 'reliable sources'. That sounds remarkably like the argument from authority. Secondly, something doesn't actually have to be agreed to exist for it to be written about. Thirdly, even if there a tiny amount of information about Trypophobia in existence that only merited a paragraph, then that's no reason to get rid of it. If it already exists, it is more likely to become built on by others, and more importantly, all new information of any kind usually merits a mere stub.

I can see that my idea of what wikipedia is supposed to be about, is somewhat radically different from yours.

--Morgan 2.0

Well, yeah. We collect verifiable information about notable subjects, gathered from reliable sources with a neutral point of view. We don't write about non-notable neologisms, and don't publishe original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dadichiluka Veera Gouri Sankara Rao

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Dadichiluka Veera Gouri Sankara Rao. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Singapore International Energy Week

Hi Orangemike, I was notified that you changed some edits made by an editor to the above article. I have not had time to look at the changes they made (life has been busy recently), but I'm not sure if you saw the conversation that took place between him and myself on my talk page (it's the top section on my talk page at the moment). When I get a chance to look at his changes, I'll give him more advice on how to edit the article in a neutral, non-POV way! To be fair, though, he does appear to want to do it correctly, so perhaps some advice on how he can add/change information in a suitable way may be useful. I'll look into this more next week when I get a chance (I'm only on for a few minutes!), but thought you might like to see the conversation I had with him.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fabio Fulco

Hello. I understand that you removed my article on Fabio Fulco due to poor indication on its significance. Could you please elaborate on your criteria regarding articles about actors ? Thanks. Barnee (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Barnee.— Barnee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See WP:ENTERTAINER. Many solid journeyman performers never achieve notability; and since you apparently couldn't find any articles about him anywhere, this seemed to be one such. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

so you really mean the imbd is not enough to start a stub ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnee (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC) }}— Barnee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Certainly not! Heck, even my 15-year-old daughter has an IMDb listing (as do I), and we're not notable at all! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

hmmm then I think quite many articles should be removed. Well would the addition of the article from a major national movie site do it:

• Fulco's biography on mymovies.it
• Fulco's filmography on mymovies.it

Barnee (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are not articles; they are listings in a directory. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. IMDB by itself is not enough to demonstrate notability, see WP:IMDB. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through that page and also through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, but in terms of the sources I have used I fail to see the inconsistency with the guidelines. The sources are neutral, they are reliable, they are not self-published, and nothing in the article removed amounts to original research or expression of opinion, and it is clear off any gossips. I realize that the article is not about a superstar, but no doubt may be cast on his quality as actor, working "full time", and often together with highly professional people (to say the least). What I find annoying in your removing of the article is that you are certainly aware of the sheer amount of other articles in WP of similar content and sourcing. What shall we do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnee (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the old WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS problem, to which I have no answer. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That page is excellent; it is saldy often just that. Leaving "other scrap" aside, confronting the guidelines and the content and sources of the article I still fail to see a fundamental problem. Do you? in second analysis?Barnee (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

hmm, silence usually means that one maintains one's view... I see that you are to remain a convinced "deletionist". Barnee (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)