User talk:Orangemike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Speedy deletion of File:1930s photo of the foreshore above Jeffrey Street 001 001004.jpg[edit]

hello Orangemike

Apologies if I missed earlier warnings, or if the file was incorrectly tagged however can I check please your speedy deletion of this photograph. The photograph was important to the article. The reference citation in the article on Jeffrey Street was as follows and my recollection is that a similar citation was present on the photo page:

"View to St. Aloysius' College above foreshores of Kirribilli" (photo). 1 copyprint; b&w; 204 x 254 mm, This photograph shows construction on foreshores of Kirribilli above Jeffrey Street. Above the foreshores is St. Aloysius; College incorprating Dr. Cox's home. Whilst barely visible above the trees is the tower of Star of the Sea Church. The homes Greencliffe and Craiglea are also visible on the right hand side above M. Steel boatshed. Jeffrey Street Wharf and Jeffrey Street: North Sydney Council, original publisher unknown. 1930s. Retrieved 27 June 2010. Image 001\001004

The file appears on the Local Government website and the source attributes the photo to "c 1930s". I thought (mistakenly) that all of the correct tags has been used both in the article and also on the photo page. I refer also to the Australian Copyright Council which states that in Australia Copyright has expired in photos taken prior to 1 January 1955. This photograph is therefore approximately 20 years out of copyright. Refer to the copyright regulation here.


Can I seek your advice please as to how to reverse this or what additional "public domain" style tag you feel was missing which should have been present on this photo to cover any other countries copyright laws etc? This photo has been on this article for almost four (4) years and this is the first time that the PD status / copyright of these very old photos has been raised as an issue.

Is my deleted article stored in the Wikipedia database?[edit]

I was told my article about Claudia Caporal was deleted because it was biased and I was too "close" to her to be able to write her article. Is there a way to rescue the writing I did for it so that I may then edit it to an appropriate stage for publishing? Thank you. KatieLee92 (talk)

Periodic general health checks and the Medcan Clinic[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Medcan Clinic § Discussion, part 2.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmccloud (talkcontribs) 20:38, 23 December 2013

Judge Alonzo Conant jpg deletion by Ronhjones[edit]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Second consideration appreciated on Talk:Gregor Collins[edit]

Hi, Orange Mike, or other user - this is a request for a second look ie a consideration in deleting the "Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable" note that has been on the Gregor Collins article since September of 2013. Reliable sources and additional, validated wiki links (including the recently approved article Goodbye Promise) have been provided in the interim, proving it a worthy candidate for no flags. I have no reason to be untruthful that this article is indeed associated with me but that is in no way an indication it is a puff piece or autobiographical piece, nor should it not be considered just as neutral as any other entry. If for some reason it's still considered flag-worthy I'd appreciate an updated explanation and what needs to be secured to have it fully approved. Thanks for your time. Gregorcollins (talk)

Some words on "ESNA European Higher Education News"[edit]

I removed the issues from the top of the page. After spending a few weeks gradually editing this article, I believe the tone is much more neutral, many references and links have been added to integrate it, and it relies much less on primary sources. If there is anything left to be improved, please let me know. Thanks.Template:Subset:unsigned

You're Invited![edit]

{{WPW Referral}}

Luv Ya page[edit]

Hello Orangemike I appreciate your advice, but just to clarify, Paloma Faith is not a minor performer. Despite not being regarded as a phenomenon like Amy Winehouse or Adele she is more popular than some may realise, and even so more financially successful than some realise. I believe if my article is up to the standard of Wikipedia, my article will be accepted. Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandidLibraryEditors (talkcontribs)

(Request Article) Draft:Restaurant City[edit]

Hi @Orangemike: I made a draft article Draft:Restaurant City, can you take a look, Thanks in advance. Mayamaya7 Poke! 09:13 AM, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

WTFRgojoey (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Does anybody here read drafts and discussion posts ("talk")? No. This is why "editors" keep responding with unrelated crap such as "... your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages ..."

Peer review newsletter #1[edit]


Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

  • THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
  • Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.


It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...
With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing[edit]

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

  • {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
  • {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review[edit]

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising[edit]

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Populism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Populism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Solomon's Pools[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Solomon's Pools. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gospel of Peter[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gospel of Peter. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society[edit]

Fifteen Year Society userbox.svg

Dear Orangemike,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richat Structure[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richat Structure. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-German sentiment[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-German sentiment. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cossack Hetmanate[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cossack Hetmanate. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Margaret Noble (artist)[edit]

Hi! I saw your old note over at User talk:Margaretnobleartist. I thought I might give you a heads up that I trimmed the article as it was excessively promotional, which I think it was took you there in the first place. The images uploaded by the artist might be the thing that pushes it in that direction. If you have ideas about how to make the article neutral, let me know.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You've degraded the Margaret Noble (artist) article, ThatMontrealIP. Bus stop (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop, you always say the nicest things. :) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the point in removing images of artwork? You leave edit summaries like "remove section. Ten images amounts to web hosting". The artist is granting permission to show images of her artwork. What do you think you are accomplishing by removing the images of artwork in a biography of an artist? Bus stop (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Having a bad night?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for speaking improperly, ThatMontrealIP. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)