User talk:Orangemike/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress:_perfection_is_not_required

Has this changed, if so, should we edit WP:IMPERFECT

"Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." --175.100.33.34 (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not trump WP:NOTADVERTISING: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, so how to proceed? What do you suggest? Do you know, someone has vandalised the page already with promotion. Rumour going around is that the Harper Collins book is not so good, the edit claims the author is more important than he is, it looks rather desperate to me.--Digital witchdoctor (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally traced WHO put that promotional advertising on the article in development - OrangeMike caught Red Handed! What is this? You accuse others of advertising, but there is no advertising intention in the article, except for what YOU put there. It is the most ludicrous quote, from Harper Collins promotion, that contributes NOTHING to the topic, Human Design, and if posted in mainspace, would only spark editing wars by newbies in their outrage. This claim is nothing to do with the topic, it is technically a primary source on the separate topic of the author, and might possibly belong on a wikipage for that author, if anywhere. Look my taxi is waiting to take me to Phnom Penh, I'm late, got to go, please think about what you are doing and why? I smell some confusion in your motivation. --Digital witchdoctor (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

About Your Userpage

I requested "Temporary semi-protection" on your userpage because of the ongoing vandalism with the sockpuppets. And with the new sockpuppet stating He will be "back in 24 hours", its probably best to try to stop it before it happens.Imperial Monarch (D•R) 03:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if that account should be tagged as a sockpuppet?--Morenooso (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Energy Policy of the Obama Administration

Hi Mike - thanks for your feedback on my draft page. I'm struggling with your first point about original research and synthesis. Can you tell me if websites of the US government are considered reliable? Thanks again. Allison | Talk 08:28, 18 April 2010

Locus picture idea

I had an idea that I thought I'd try out on you since I know you know the field, and you may be able to tell me whether there's a flaw in this. It struck me that Locus probably has a huge pile of pictures of sf authors that they don't need for publication and which are unlikely ever to earn them money via copyright. I was thinking it would be worth writing to Locus and asking if there are any pictures of authors which they would be willing to release under an appropriate licence, which could then be used on Wikipedia. Presumably there is a licence which would give Locus credit for the picture while not restricting the use. If they agreed, I'd have to figure out the precise mechanism by which they would give permission (via WP:OTRS, if I recall correctly). Anyway, is this worth trying, do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought about this some more and went ahead and emailed them. Mike Christie (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

German?

I don't speak German and usually have to rely on Babelfish to help me out. Did this username upon which I commented have a different meaning? Of course, having "Sieg Heil" as part of your username probably isn't the best idea to begin with... TNXMan 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It roughly translates as "Hail Victory; My Honor is [or lies in] Loyalty"; the "Victory" alluded to can only be one kind (the phrase appears to have been original to the Nazis) and the cause to which the "Loyalty" is held likewise. There is no way any German-speaker can have meant anything ambiguous by such a username. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, you do realize, don't you, that Meine Ehre Ist Treue was a motto of the SS? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had no idea. Thank you for pointing it out (in retrospect, the first two words should have given it away). Why people would still subscribe to such beliefs (if they're serious) or even try to pass it off as joke is beyond me. TNXMan 11:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin–Parkside

Hi,

You tagged the above article with some maintenance tags with this edit. Revws has made some effort to clean up the article by spliting off some of it to a new article Timeline of the University of Wisconsin–Parkside however he removed the {{Inappropriate tone|date=March 2010}} and {{POV|date=March 2010}} tags with this edit.

I reverted the edit here and have via his talk page and my talk page have been trying to get him to talk to you about the tags, but he seems unwilling so I am asking you directly - can you please review the article and see if the tags are still necessary and if you believe they are would you let Revws know your reasoning.

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved the problematic part of the article to University of Wisconsin–Parkside Timeline of Notable Events. Could you give a response whether you agree to remove those tags from UW–Parkside? The article looks fine to me now. If you disagree, please specify which part still have issues. Revws (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This list should be cut back by about 90% and integrated into the main University of Wisconsin–Parkside article as a "History" section. Most of this content is simply not encyclopedic in nature.

Well, in that case, I'll move the tag from UW-Parkside to the Timeline articles. The remainings of UW-Parkside is ok now. Revws (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod of Story points

Orangemike, I've removed the prod tag from Story points because you had previously proposed it for deletion and that prod had been contested. Since articles that have had a prod contested are no longer eligible for prod, you will need to take it to WP:AFD if you want it deleted. Calathan (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of number signs

Orangemike,

Thank you for your comment regarding using "No." as an abbreviation rather than "#". Actually, that usage is in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for number signs, as follows:

*Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No." For example:

Incorrect: Her album reached #1 in the UK album charts.
Correct: Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts.

I hope this reference is helpful.

RadioBroadcast (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is, actually; thanks! (I may disagree with the MOS, but natheless our edits should accord with it.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Enquiry

Hi Orangemike

You had deleted a page for iYogi in December 2008, as G11: Blatant advertising

I have created a new entry, which acts only as an information page, with no references about the company or any adverting material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ridge87701/IYogi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridge87701 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please go through it once, and let me know if it's okay to post it as a proper entry now?

If you think that it still doesn't works out, please let me know what all can be removed or added. I have based this page very closely on the lines of the entry for support.com another technical support company, which provides exactly the same services as iYogi and tried to keep it as neutral as possible.

It you think its okay to go ahead and post it, it would be great if you can add the references in the article. I have entered the reference manually, but couldn't insert it in the text.

Thanks for your help and advice, in advance :)

Cheers

Ridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridge87701 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a little, and moved it to IYogi. Read WP:CITE for how to insert the references. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Usernames

Is the best thing to do when I come across usernames such as User:Spies Public Library to report them to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD for American City University

You and I discussed American City University after it was created last summer. Accordingly, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American City University. --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Vancouverspinecarecentre

I'm an idiot. Didn't even notice the username. Thanks for catching it. — Satori Son 14:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Margo&Gladys

You asked whether I am Margo and also Gladys. No. I am Brendan Wolfe, an editor and writer living in Charlottesville, Virginia. At the risk of exposing myself as a Crazy Cat Person, Margo & Gladys are my cats. Best, Margo&Gladys (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Panyd's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring report

I have reported Canada Jack for edit-warring and your name was mentioned in reference to past conduct. Be advised I did not report you, but your conduct may be questioned as a result.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Following this latest dispute over the NAU article makes my head want to explode. How about you? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik Paulsen article

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article about Erik Paulsen (Republican Rep from Minnesota). There's an editing war going on there. Your comments/edits would be appreciated. Thanks. David Straub (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Feedback?

Just a head's up, I'm soliciting feedback on the VHEMT article in the talk section for the current revision, I've made a substantial revision in the effort to meet WP policy guidelines. I know that you have as well, thanks! Please take a look and join the discussion if you're interested. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Klotsche Center

It is a head of US visit. It is a notable enent to this building. Please stop deleting. Untlesj (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tennis Team

I answered a {{helpme}}, which was probably really directed at you, on User talk:Tennis Team.  Chzz  ►  17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Rod Serling Article

Hello, Orangemike,

Thanks for doing what you did on the Rod Serling Article, but a great portion of it is still missing, Please go back in its history to April 29, That's when I replaced a vandalized Section. The edits that followed really screwed things up - including mine! I don't know how to fix it. -- Michael David (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks for your work, Orangemike, And, thanks for the copyright tip on the sound clip. (If you're interested, I could still send you a copy of it via private email. I can't help it :-) - its my favorite quote of his.) -- Michael David (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The Young Orators Club of Secunderabad

A page about "The Young Orators Club of Secunderabad" was deleted stating that it was "unambiguous advertising".

13:02, 14 April 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "The Young Orators Club of Secunderabad" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

The Young Orators Club of Secunderabad is a non-profit organization that has been run by generations of students for over 40 years in Secunderabad. The simplest explanation is that it is a local Toastmasters that stayed a single club. Can the page please be restored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnanvrath (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 May 2010

Thomas Wilson Spence

Would you please look at the article about Thomas Wilson Spence? You may want to check the other articles that the editor also created. I may some changes defaultsort/category. The editor also wrote about some college literary society which is up for deletion. Many thanks-hope your family and yourself are doing well-RFD (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WHY!

Is there any reason WHY you deleted MY user page? Don't touch what is not yours!--Az81964444 (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted it under speedy deletion category G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. If that was not what you wanted, I apologize. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vision Care for Homeless people

Hello Orangemike,

I am new to wiki and struggling to find my way around the systems. Thank you for taking to time to read my original page. I have looked at your comments and addressed them by radically changing the test, adding references and reducing external links. I would like to relist my amended page for review but it is instantly deleted because it is the same name as the previous page.

Can you please advise me how I go about relisting a page for review?

Regards,

caring opticianCaring optician (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See my message already left on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

new page version

Hello Orangemike, I have read your previous comments and made some very dramatic changes to the page. I have put factual information only that is objective and I feel people would find interesting and informative as required in an encylopedia. I have added references including one from the BBC. These references are notable for the UK. Could I ask you to look at the new version and then comment? Thank you for your time. Caring optician (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

new page

Hello Orangemike, I am just resending as I am not sure if signed off properly and if you received my message. Thanks. I have read your previous comments and made some very dramatic changes to the page. I have put factual information only that is objective and I feel people would find interesting and informative as required in an encylopedia. I have added references including one from the BBC. These references are notable for the UK. Could I ask you to look at the new version and then comment? Thank you for your time. Caring opticianCaring optician (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See my comments at User talk:Caring optician/new article name here --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you revert this please?

Can you revert the Wildlife of Peru article please I tried reverting it, but, I can't go back far enough to revert to the correct one before it was vandalized. By an IP Address.

Thanks, --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Userfication request

Hi Orangemike, can you userfy Chris Zardas to my userspace? Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Done; but until and unless he actually plays in the bigs, he fails WP:ATHLETE, and should not be put back into article space. Not even draftees of The Packers get that. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know, thanks. But if you look at the current AfD for Charles Alexander (defensive tackle), who wasn't drafted and failed his physical with the Eagles, you will see that WP:GNG is a bigger factor in deletion discussions than WP:ATH, so Zardas has a chance to make mainspace even if he doesn't make the team. I don't think that will be the case, so I'll hold on to the article until we see if he makes the team. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Armando Favazza

Just a note that User:Armando Favazza did not create Armando Favazza. It was in fact created by User:Psychlopedia as the history shows. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user not blocked

Hi. I noticed that you added {{Uw-soablock}} to the talk page of Wilsonmd (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) but according to their block log, they don't appear to be blocked. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

JMS's Hitchcock-esque moment

Mike, thanks for revising Babylon 5 to include: "This final episode features a cameo appearance by Straczynski as the technician who switches off the lights before Babylon 5 is evacuated and destroyed." As you are well aware, Mr. Straczynski's cameo is far from trivia. By the way, May the 4th be with you. :-) --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stereo Skyline

I recently noticed that the page Stereo skyline had incorrect formatting. I tried to move it to Stereo Skyline but noticed it was protected from creation. I actually asked for speedy deletion of the article until I noticed that Stereo Skyline has become notable. They have been on two major national tours (Take Action 2010 tour and The Bamboozle Roadshow 2010) and have been featured in a national magazine Alternative Press. Even though they barely meet A7, I think they meet it enough to support creation of the article. --Russ is the sex (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wally Hedrick

Thank you so much for the 'undo' with the anon vandalism on the Wally Hedrick page. People will stop at nothing to minimize the renown of this artist -- the genius of his generation. Best -- --Art4em (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Sky Is Falling (2001 novel)

You have marked this deletion page on my talk page. I haven't created this page nor have I edited it. So any particular reason you have marked it in my page?--PremKudva^Talk 11:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops ignore earlier message, turns out I did create it many years ago;-) All four lines at that time, and then unwatched it.--PremKudva^Talk 11:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Userfication request on deleted page Jo Estill

Hi Orangemike, please could you userfy Jo Estill to my userspace? I'm working on a fully referenced biography article on Jo and want to see if there's anything of use in the previous article content. I've already started work on an article on one of her albums User:Knavesdied/On Wings Of Song (album). Many thanks. Knavesdied (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same Jo Estill? The deleted article is about a voice coach, and seems to be taken straight off her website. I'm a bit reluctant to restore even for userfication because it looks suspiciously like copyright violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is the same Jo Estill. She's had a long career, starting out as a singer, then doing published voice research at Universities, and then moving into voice coaching. From what I remember the old article said one line about Jo and then a few paragraphs on the Estill Voice Training System taken from their website. Would you rather I start the article as new than keep the history of the old one? I'm easy either way and just want to do the right thing. --Knavesdied (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say make a fresh start.

Cool. Thank you for the help. What happens with this 'talk' section? Does it stay here for a bit and then get deleted, or should I delete it now you've answered my query? Thanks again! --Knavesdied (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got it set to auto-archive after a couple of weeks. No need for you to do anything; indeed, it's considered bad form to delete or edit anything (including your own posts) from anybody else's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood! --Knavesdied (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

International Victimology Institute Tilburg

Hi Mike, I didn't tag it for deletion for "not asserting notability", I tagged it as spam... – ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am the one challenging notability; the spamminess, to me, didn't quite make it to the speedy-deletion level.

--Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes I saw that, but your speedy decline rationale implied that you were declining because it asserted notability not because the spaminess wasn't spammy enough! I will prod2 it. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

anusaaraka page deleted ?

Hi Mike,

Long ago this page was deleted citing reason ((G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) This is a free GPL based opensource Machine Translation software for English to Indian languages. For details you can read [http:Anudev (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)//anusaaraka.iiit.ac.in] . Can you please restore the site. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anudev (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The "article" that was deleted by that name, was an advertisement for a non-notable project still under development. If you feel this software is now notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia, then create a new article by that name. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

pixetell article for your review

Hi OrangeMike, my name’s Dan Cook. I'm contacting you because you've worked on the Pixetell article in the past. I work for the company that produces the software and I have been learning more about Wikipedia so that we may have a page there that is informative and objective. I have posted a proposed rewrite for the article in my user space which I believe is a general improvement over the article you commented on. I hope this version addresses the concerns in the tags at the top of the page. Please take a look if you have a moment. (See link at Talk:Pixetell.) -Dan Cook 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

Possible un-blacklist?

Hey Orange Mike,

I run the music news website DyingScene.com. When I first launched the site my editors and I used the account DyingSceneMusic to update band pages with information as it came to us which we ignorantly sourced back to ourselves. At the time, I didn't realize that was a violation and now that I know, I do not intend to use this account (or any account) ever again. I have also made it clear to all contributors and editors of DyingScene to under no circumstances ever update a wikipedia page and use dyingscene.com as the source. Unfortunatley it looks like dyingscene.com had been blacklisted before I could notify everybody to stop self-sourcing.

As our site grows, however (now up to 40,000 uniques - not bad, for a niche punk news site), I would like wikipedia contributors to be able to use our site as a source if it is valid to do so, which brings me to the point of this message; Is it possible to have the blacklisting reversed, set on probation, or at the very least be reconsidered after a certain time period (6 months?, one year?)?

I do not intend to use the account ever again so it is fine if it remains blocked. Please let me know what can be done to undo the blacklisting (if anything).

Sincerely,

Dave (DyingSceneMusic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.43.51 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Make your case at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

If you continue to vandalize my talk pages i will have you blocked indefinitely!--Light for JC (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Light for JC

(somebodies jealous of my handwriting on my talk pages>hum....?)--Light for JC (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Light for JC oh, and also some times i abbreviate or make short my comments on my talk pages to make typing faster , not because i cant spell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Light for JC (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike, Sorry; won't do that again.

OrangeMike, sorry for break with protocol. These were nondestructive edits, of course. It looks to me that you reinstated everything. I will learn how to archive as soon as I have time. Meanwhile, I believe all text was restored by you. Thanks so much. Harmonia1 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Landover Baptist is Helpful

OrangeMike, I have informed the members of LBC about your descriptions of the church and its website. They are pleased with your interest and they will be contacting you on the issue of its legitimacy and the accuracy of the article.Thank You Cosmos0001 (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Nbahn's talk page.
Message added 05:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(query to you) <br. />—NBahn (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

House of Vlašim

Vlasime (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)House of Vlasim

Hello .. why did you make changes ?

I added more detail and references which confirm the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlasime (talk • contribs) — Vlasime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I removed NPOV tag

If I read the history right, you left a number of tags on Gay Apostolic Pentecostals. At the time of tagging, the article was in poor shape. Looks like it is materially improved. I removed an NPOV tag, as I didn't see the problem in the existing text (although I didn't scrutinize each version to see if it was there and removed.) I just wanted to give you a heads up, as you added the tag.--SPhilbrickT 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You did the right thing; it's clearly a better article now. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mpmpl_journals

You blocked this user, as a spam only account, and I do not think he should have been. He just needs to adopt a new name. He is entering straight descriptive material, and at least one, Annals of African Medicine ‎is clearly notable, I think Conservation and Society is also, & am checking the others. I will advise him accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Duck.

Mostly my username is because I needed a username. Something unique, inoffensive, and not implying any special claim of expertise. Yes, 'twas a Marx Brothers reference (even though I hadn't seen the movie yet at the time). -- Why Not A Duck 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Appreciate the insight on weakening my own arguments. However, I specifically mentioned how tha PPV (pay per view) gates, in which MMA had 7 out of 10 of the highest views in the world for the last 4 years, proved that (I guess I should have cited that though, huh?). If you're not a fan, I understand you might not get how incredibly popular MMA is. But the reality is what the reality is, and there are so many (secondary) sources out there that will back it up I honestly don't thing its a point worth arguing about. Thanks for your comments though. Mmasource (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on policy

There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of WP:WAX the final entry on legitimate usage, WP:BIAS and the current reading of WP:NPOV. I hopefully summarized my case effectively here. Alatari (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Zeeland Library and BibliOosterschelde

Hello Mike,

My account has been blocked after one day, just because i tried to help to make the entry Zeeland Library better by translating the entry from the Dutch Wikipedia. Nothing more, nothing less. I added BibliOosterschelde as well. It's called not notable, but serves a bigger audience than Zeeland Library. Right now, dutch libraries are working on a project with Wikimedia, in order to get people to understand Wikipedia better. I wrote tens of articles on this kind of cooperation. But it's quite hard to add content. The rules are not consistent. Not quite stimulating... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbdigitaal (talk • contribs) 09:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See my response at User talk:Zbdigitaal.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group Conspiracy

Hi Mike,

I am very new to wikipedia but have read all the details surrounding my first post. After reading those details I decided to edit the current page Link rather then create a new one. I have done loads of research in regards to this subject but decided to post my ideas under the conspiracy section. After posting my material including the potential plans developed (and already being seen in real life), the various people attending this meeting I found the post deleted because its not considered "neutral". Ok... Now please refer to your own wording of conspiracy, [[1]], in particular: Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy. I cant understand how a conspiracy theory section is supposed to be neutral and would love some feedback as to how I can post this information in a more "neutral" manner. This is if neutrality is the reason for my post being deleted. The vast majority of people due to attend the next meeting in Spain listed in my post have already been confirmed as regulars to the annual meeting. Surely simply posting names and positions of attendees to the meeting isn't in any way un-neutral? Thanks for any feedback!

Regards, UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not Mike, but I'm going to tell you the same thing he will. Your sources do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS. On Wikipedia, entries about living people (WP:BLP), especially contentious information, MUST be sourced with reliable source. Your list is all living people and their attendence is contentious. Therefore, it should have been deleted. Please adhere to these policies and take heed with the warnings or you will find yourself blocked. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, it does however not help in my dilemma. How can a post made under the banner of conspiracy have a reliable source? Surely if it had reliable sources it wouldn't be a conspiracy? Again I refer to your sites own interpretation of conspiracy: The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any legitimate or illegitimate claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." I can understand your logic if we where not dealing under the banner of conspiracy I mean the same logic would mean you should you delete all Wiki entries about UFO's etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

People write books and magazine articles about claimed conspiracies all the time. If you can't point to such sources then what you're repeating is rumor, and not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Again conspiracy theories ARE rumors because they cant be proven. However posting information regarding the potential conspiracy plans can then with time reveal their authenticity. The sources I have used and studied have previously detailed plans that have come to into play several years later. Bilderberg has been in existence for several decades in TOTAL secrecy, only a few years ago was its simple existence exposed. You are now telling me that the page entitled Bilderberg must have factual sources in order to be posted when with a tiny bit of research you would know that last meeting in Greece was guarded by the local police, Mossad, CIA, Navy commandos, two F16 fighter planes and sharp shooters with orders to kill if you intrude.Reliable Source. Then you might as well remove the page all together as all thats been reliably proven is it exists. UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I just looked at the source and only about half of what you just said above is in the article. It didn't say anything about Mossad, the CIA or "sharpshooters with order to kill if you intrude". So you listed 6 things and 3 of them weren't in the source. That kind of stuff will get you jammed up fast around here. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you post unsourced conspiracy theories again, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If a source has written about a conspiracy, then the conspiracy can be added (citing the source). If no source can be found, then the conspiracy can't be added. TFOWR^propaganda 20:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And, again, people write articles in magazines and books about conspiracy theories all the time. You need to use sources that are reliable written sources and which Wikipedians and other researchers can verify. Blogs aren't good enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• There should be some way to add some of this information (sans the list of attendees) to the conspiracies section, since the section is about what conspiracy theorists claim, but I think you personally won't be able to keep your style neutral since you feel so passionate about it. Though maybe if someone who's neutral would bother to help you out with this, that'd be great. (I personally have no idea what's going on so I don't think I can help much.) ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 20:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to try to be as neutral as possible to be able to pass this information on, however it will take time for me to reword my post. I am unsure at this point if its worth it as ALL major media are part of the Bilderberg group and hence of course wont have anything to do with its exposure. Please enlighten me what type of source would be deemed approvable. For example would This and This and This be regarded as a potential source I can use for my post?

Thanks for your help UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Guardian is a RS without debate. The Free Press one does make me a little uneasy because it appears to be written to promote a book. That could be debated. Conspiracyplanet? I doubt you'll find many supporters of that being considered a RS. Can I ask if you have actually read WP:RS yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian Free Press is an online right wing website, described variously as a 'right wing whacko news site' and a 'racist right wing rag'. Hard to see what it could be used for in most articles. And the editor needs to read WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to Niteshift: Yes I have read it, my quarrel is that most publications I understand as being approved by the Wiki WP:RS wont have anything to do with conspiracy theories regarding the Bilderberg group as they themselves are part of it. Its like asking for the conspirators to prove the conspiracy. I have enough material from The Guardian and The Free Press to create my post with sources I can post to back it up. Is there anywhere I can create a draft to be checked and approved as to not be blocked if my 1st attempt doesn't suffice to meet the required guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Plenty of reliable sources address conspiract theories. You're finding that out here. It may not be the exact info you want or that you want included in the article, but that's just the way it is sometimes. An essay that you might find enlightening is WP:TRUTH. For example, I can watch a bridge collapse and 20 people die. I can't put it on Wikipedia, even though it is absolutely true. I have to wait for some reporter who wasn't even there to write about it. It is frustrating, but realistic. We can't be a repository of every bit of information on the internet. Any crackpot with an axe to grind can put up a website and say anything they want. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we have to have things like the RS standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dougweller I can assure you I am neither right wing nor racist and nothing in my post would be either. I would strictly be staying on topic in regards to the secret meetings and potential discussions/plans taking place within it. UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that wasn't what Doug meant - as I understood it he was commenting that The Free Press would probably not be a reliable source. TFOWR^propaganda 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I think I know how to create my post citing the required Wiki RS sources, can I create a draft somewhere without spamming and without fear of being blocked and somehow have my post checked to make sure its neutral enough and that my sources meet the RS guidelines. I wont be making use of the Free Press in light of these new facts (not a regular reader, simply found a good story about Bilderberg on their site). I will most likely be using The Guardian, Government websites, The Indipendent and potentially if approved Rebel News. I would like to thank you all for your contribution and help! UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You can make a draft here, for example: User:UNLiMiTED TRUTH/Bilderberg Group, and ask anyone you think has good judgement to take a look at it. Sorry about the warnings, I know I hate being threatened when I'm trying to help, but that's just how Wikipedia functions. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I Have gathered all the sources (and more) that I need for my post from what I understand to be eligible sources under WK:RS, to speed up the process of digesting the sources and to ensure I dont make false assumptions into what is deemed RS I would like a moderator to confirm the below links are ok for me to use for my intended post.

Rebel News The Independent The Guardian BBC J.F.K Quote from Wiki : ) UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• • I hate to be difficult, and this is going to sound odd, but hopefully you might even find it funny... but Wikipedia is not a reliable source - you can't use references from Wikipedia or other user-edited web-sites. The other sources looked OK to me at first glance - the Guardian and the Independent are two of the five major UK boardsheets, and the BBC - well, the BBC is the BBC ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Special thanks to BrightBlackHeaven for all the useful information and help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the bbc, we all trust the bbc. It depends not only on the citation but also on the content. It this to do with the Glenn Beck alert about Maurice Strong? Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Surely if a wiki post needs to be RS to be posted it should be able to used as RS? Im confused lol : ) The speech is a very famous one from 1969 before the UN about secret societies. I hope that it should be ok as I will quote it and can easily find another source if need be. I am hoping that common sense will prevail on this last issue and that I wont be require to. You guys have been very helpful, thanks for your patience and time!!! I will now get started on the link BrightBlackHeaven kindly presented UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You can use the sources used in the Kennedy article, just not the article itself! Am I right in thinking you're just intending to quote Kennedy himself? That should be pretty easy to do, without using Wikipedia as a source. (Ask me for help with that if you run into problems). TFOWR^propaganda 22:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• A remarkable speech of courage, most likely the one that cost him his life... : ( Wont post it all as fairly long but yes its quoted from JFK.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession. You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity. This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy. The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceeding.... You get the jist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have completed version 1.0, a simple copy paste job from the sources I have decided to use. Whilst cutting it down I was blocked, first permanently, then for 30 something hours. Once I had a chance to speak to the Moderator I was told that my post is an advocacy platform and not the intended use of Wiki. I will make due amendments and would like all the feedback I can get to make sure I am following Wiki guidelines for this post. My sole objective is to relay some information not widely known and not promote any particular agenda. If you have some time to hand please give me some feedback as to how I can accomplish my goal within the required guidelines. Thanks, UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

First, I think there are some copyright violation on your draft - we say 'copyvio', as I've found unattributed direct statements from a self-published book called "10th Amendment Secures A Republic Form Of Government!!!" and the BBC. Note that Authorhouse books are all self-published and can't be used as sources. Darkpolitricks isn't a reliable source either. Nor is 'www.powerofno.org' whose slogan is "Destroy the New World Order before it destroys you". You can't have copyright violations anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(Should we move this to the draft's talk page? Maybe?) Right now it looks a bit long, I'll remind you that we're writing an encyclopedia here. And like said above, don't ever copy-paste directly. Facts aren't copyrighted but the text is, so you'll have to re-word it, hopefully in a more concise manner. You'll definitely have to add inline citations, after every fact and quote that's from a different source. Would this whole thing go under the conspiracy theories section or where?

I'll try to actually look at the content now to see if I can help in writing it.

The PowerOfNo article is from infowars.com, is that a reliable source? Wnd.com doesn't look too reliable either. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 07:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• infowars.com sure as hell isn't a RS. WND is oft debated at the RS/N. Generally the consensus is no. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Long overdue pint

See your work occasionally but owe you this for a long time. If not for your timely intervention [2] in extracting me from an early difficulty, I might have given up on this Wikipedia thing at the start (2007). Best. RashersTierney (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

RashersTierney (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Unprotect a talk page

Please. Talk:Manifest Destiny 85.77.220.235 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Centre Curling Club

Hello, so if I understand correctly, it is your opinion that an old club like the Milwaukee Curling Club is notable, but a new club is not, even if it's been the subject of a lot of attention as being the only club formed in response to the 2010 Olympics to actually incorporate, get rocks, etc. OK, that's your opinion and you are, of course, entitled to it. I would appreciate it if you would tell me your opinion on notability of the following:

Bemidji Curling Club	San Francisco Bay Area Curling Club	Mayfield Curling Club	St. Paul Curling Club
Columbus Curling Club	Chicago Curling Club	Midland Curling Club	Cape Cod Curling Club
Dakota Curling Club	Detroit Curling Club	Milwaukee Curling Club	Plainfield Curling Club
Pittsburgh Curling Club	Granite Curling Club	Broomstones Curling Club	Utica Curling Club

Thanks for your attention, --WaxonWaxov (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are sixteen different articles, and that would be sixteen different discussions. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a quick spin through them, tagged for speedy deletion the ones that pretty clearly qualify for deletion and templated others with issues tags. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wayne Miller (poet)

I know it's been a year, but I was wondering if you could review this speedy deletion. I believe it clearly states the notability, mentioning multiple awards won, and multiple publications. Yeah, it needs better sources, and this guy isn't a super star or anything, but I don't think the article was fit for speedy, and was wondering what you thought. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ella Chi

This is my first time on Wikipedia, I work for Ella's PR company and I have been trying to establish this as a reputable page. Thank you for your input, but please forgive the content that is perhaps of 'promotional' nature - I am trying to adapt this as we speak. I am currently searching for more reputable sources, as I understand that the link to the club is not good enough. Please do not be rude though, as I have been working on this for ages! Claire Paxton-Rider (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I work for her Radio Plugging company - we call it PR as it is a type of public relations. I am doing her label manager a favour by attempting to create the page. I am not a publicist, therefore am an impartial 3rd party. Claire Paxton-Rider (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely a publicist, and are by no means an impartial 3rd party! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly enough I can actually believe that his person thinks she is "an impartial 3rd party". Such are the bizarre contortions of thinking which people in PR and marketing perform. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

After a certain time in the industry, they seem to become tone-deaf to the difference between copywriting and legitimate prose (or perhaps it is just those types who are drawn to the trade). They also seem to lose (if they ever had) any sensitivity to the concept that not everybody approves of this kind of shameless shilling. Claire posted just below here that she is "a plugger, not a publicist"; an incomprehensibly subtle distinction that reminds me of the social hierarchies in prisons between the various types of felons and misdemeanants (different kinds of murderers and rapists get different levels of status). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User Phmiraclesecrets

Phmiraclesecrets (talk · contribs) apparently started editing as 70.234.0.145 (talk · contribs) after the account was blocked. He's signing his comments with "phmiraclesecrets", once with "pHmiraclesecrets/Michael Dare". I'm not exactly sure why you blocked his account, so wanted to let you know of his continued editing in case this might be considered sockpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ella Chi

I am not a publicist, I am a plugger. They are different, but by the by - please can you inform me what changes I need to make to ensure that this abides by the Wikipedia rules, as I would like to put the page live. I have already edited many of the dubious content... Claire Paxton-Rider (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It needs a lot more work, but I'm still not sure if it's worth the effort if the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There are social hierarchies everywhere, even (my union brothers assure me) among murderers in maximum security prisons. This distinction you claim to exist between a "plugger" and any other species of publicist is imperceptible to the rest of us. More to the point, I have less than zero interest in helping you commit acts of advertisement here in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok

So that page Orange (colour) is supposed to be misspelled. Ok. I thought it was a spelling error that needed fixing. Sorry about that. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not misspelled; it's spelled in the way that people in the country where this language we are both using was invented, choose to spell it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! – ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "heare, heare"? TNXMan 18:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Ukexpat: I'm a big Noah Webster guy myself (considering Sam. Johnson just another arrogant damned Tory Englishman, mostly to be ignored like all of his beastly tribe [Tories, that is]); and I have been known to get downright snarky about the kind of insecure American who Anglicizes because Britspeak (or at least Britspell) is seen as more "upscale". That doesn't stop me from respecting WP:ENGVAR. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BYSO

Oh, I'm definitely not questioning recent COI edits. I'm just arguing that it's a notable group, that had substantial content before the COI edits, so it didn't deserve that particular tag. {{tone}}, I won't dispute. :-) Thanks for the followup! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Morrisjenkins

I checked the contributions of User:Morrisjenkins and saw only two entries - the image creations, and the post at WP:feed. Why don't I see a creation of a draft article and a move? I understand that the article was CSD'd, so I cannot see the article, but I didn't think a CSD removed entries from a contributions log. Am I wrong, or missing something?--SPhilbrickT 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They're showing at Special:DeletedContributions/Morrisjenkins for me. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew I couldn't see a deleted contribution, but for some reason, I thought I could see the entry in the contributions list. I was wrong. I've learned something new, thanks.--SPhilbrickT 15:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

IRA

Thank you for the comment on my talk page about Michael Collins. Do you have citations that support claims that the British may have assassinated him? I've heard stories about conspiracies that range from de Valera to the British in regards to Collins' death, but most accepted sources seem to go with the IRA. Thanks.Malke2010 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I read a book on that topic within the past three years which made that claim; but I have long since sold the book (one problem in working at a used-book store, I fear). I don't remember the title, and it was from a small Irish publisher. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a Google search. How nice you work at a bookstore. I did that in college. Spent too much of my pay there, but I did get to read a lot when things were slow. :) Malke2010 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're not surviving on bookstore pay. I remember those wages. They were okay for a student, but not for real life.Malke2010 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pixetell page ready for review

Mike: Please visit my draft of the rewrite of the Pixetell page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DDcook/Article_draft Your feedback would be greatly appreciated! Dan Cook 21:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

Sock

I believe User:Betsy Cragon is a sock of someone you blocked recently. ccwaters (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch; sockblocked and their post responded to. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I came across that post and your response on the RFC page, and I made a response there. I didn't find any record of an investigation of this alleged sockpuppet. Was the IP the same or similar to that of Democracy's Lawyer? Did they fail to respond to questions? It seems a bit precipitate to ban her for posting a directly on-topic reference to a history book from a university press, particularly after she asked for help as a new user. From my response on the RFC page: "By all means blacklist spammers, but it would be a dangerous policy to blacklist references to books, particularly academic books - it would be too easy for someone who wanted to suppress a book to covertly spam references to it in order to get it blacklisted (not that that is likely to have happened in this case)."

You note that neither user made a case for inclusion, so allow me: this book has the subtitle "Felix Grundy of the Old Southwest", has a portrait of Felix Grundy on its cover, is proposed as a reference in the Felix Grundy article, and as I noted before, it is a history book from a university press (LSU). Do you have any objection to me adding that reference back into the Felix Grundy article now? Enon (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Added the reference back - see comment at #Betsy Cragon, below. Enon (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Betsy Cragon

This user has requested to be unblocked on unblock-en-l since she created the new account after being informed that the previous account's username violated WP:UN. I believe this is a legitimate use of multiple accounts, but I wanted to request your comments on the matter before unblocking.

She has indicated that the author of the book is a friend of hers, so I am going to bring up COI in my response to her and suggest that she instead post the content she wishes to add on the talk page and let other editors decide if it should be included. (Assuming that she is unblocked, of course.) --Chris (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I copied the RFC discussion to the article's (Talk:Felix Grundy) talk page. I have checked that the reference she proposed for the article is appropriate and added it back to that article. I have no prior knowledge or interest about the book, the topic, the users or the author. See also my comments above at #Sock. Enon (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee

Hello Orange Mike. Since you were commented on Keegscee's block on his talk page, I'm listing you as an involved party an ArbCom request seeking an official ArbCom ban for that user. Your input is desired. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Delany as Marxist

FWIW, Chip does refer to himself as a "boring old Marxist." I think it was in "The Polymath", though it could have been somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 03:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you may be right, but we can't put it in the article unless we've got a citation. I may see him this weekend (Wiscon! Squee!); if so, I'll ask. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't see him, let me know and I'll just email him and ask where it was mentioned. Kdring (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Have Spacesuit. Will Travel Original Research

Your deletion of errors section was restored with the comment "or discuss" so I've collected the comments I know about on the article's talk page.regards, Rich Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.28.186 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Takako Nishizaki DdePROD

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Takako Nishizaki, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Trypophobia

Hey OrangeMike. I've reviewed the submission history of "Trypophobia," and noticed there were probably a few incomplete submissions, likely without any sources cited and generally written in a poor manner, so it has been locked. With a little research, I've found I'm definitely not the only person that becomes anxious, itchy, and downright creeped out by little holes, like ones in swiss cheese, lotus seed pods, and things like my shower drain. some info about it can be found here: http://ptsdcentral.com/tag/trypophobia/ It seems there haven't been many, if any studies on trypophobia, but it is definitely a real phobia, thought most of the population is probably not affected by it. So I was just wondering what your thoughts on it were, if you believe it should be a full article on wikipedia or not, and if there's anything I can do to help make it happen. LethargicS (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are some solid reliable sources, then go for it; but it's a lot easier to make up a term for a phobia than to document its existence as an actual clinical phenomenon. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

i realized only today that others are affected by this condition. i have had difficulty looking at clusters of asymmetrical holes for most of my life. there may not be medical studies documenting this because it was only in the age of the internet that people started searching for information on it. i'm sure it sounds like nonsense to anyone else, but the effect is real. it's not a fight or flight feeling so much as a feeling of disgust. i realize wikipedia needs sources to create an article and there are no reliable ones so far. but i wanted to add my voice to lethargics to say that this is real. --61.33.33.2 (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

phony looking article

i was browsing as an anonymous ip in Category:Chinese military personnel stubs when i came across this phony article. It looks to me like a prank, since there are no sources, there is no corresponding article on chinese wikipedia, and it was created by a banned account.

i created this account, and asked a chinese admin on whether this guy is real or not. He said he had insufficient knowledge.

ive looked up this name on google books, not only with the english name, but the chinese name as well, and no where does it say that this guy ever was a general, only things like facebook accounts came up. False spotter (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

SMC Group

Howdy.

When you recently blocked SMC Group (talk · contribs) as spamname (for which I am grateful), you blocked account creation from the IP address. Maybe you did not intend to choose that option, in which case, no biggie. But if you did... we need to chat, re. policy recommendations that users in such cases can simply create a new account.

In the specific case, someone removed the creation block, but I wanted to check in case there is some misunderstanding going on (either on my own part or yours) - as far as I am aware, it is 'good advice' to suggest that a spamname-blocked user just creates a new account when blocked (with few edits) - if that is not the 'correct' approach, it might need clarification in policy. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The distinction here is between the spamusername block, where there is not only an unacceptable name, but also the author has been creating articles about the company/organization/agency the account is named for (and often making other inappropriate edits such as spamlinking), for which new account creation blocking is automatic; and the softerblock, where the name is inappropriate but the account hasn't been creating inappropriate articles or making inappropriate edits, in which case new account creation is NOT blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mm, I appreciate that, but in this case, had they? Not a big deal anyway, it's all over with. I just mention it because it's a fairly common trouble. A user is spamname blocked - yes, usually after creating an article or something, because that's how it get spotted. They ask for help and are advised to create a new account, per policy - but cannot due to the flag (which I think some admins leave set purely because it is the default). For example, just now, I had another.  Chzz  ►  19:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

They (your example case) appear to have dealt constructively with it. As long as the editor continues to be able to discuss the matter on their talk page, I don't perceive a real problem here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but, that's because PeterSymonds was 'handy'. In helping new users all the time, I spend much time trying to find admins to do things like this; when people try to help a user with a spamname issue, and follow policy saying to create another account, then find they cannot, it makes an additional hurdle to overcome in trying to get a new contributor into a productive state. I'm not arguing w/ you, Orangemike - just telling it from the 'other side' as it were. It's all good.  Chzz  ►  19:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Goody for you on GoodyBurrett

Would you mind closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GoodyBurrett which I was in the process of nominating while you were in the process of deleting, salting, and blocking. Good work! Best wishes, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been closed already.  Chzz  ►  19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation Account

Just wanted to let you know there was an impersonation account of yours, under the name User:Orangmike. Sad, I know. They have been blocked indef (requesting unblocked per WP:DOPPLEGANGER). Just wanted to make you aware. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fictional presence in linguistic relativity

You reverted my deletion of the section "fictional presence" in linguistic relativity arguing that it was an "inappropriate move of material to wrong article". However, the move was made after several discussions on the talk page, but in Talk:Linguistic relativity#cleanup in particular. Also, consensus is (i) that the article is too big and (ii) that the fictional material does not belong there and therefore the move was not inappropriate. And, I duly researched the matter and found that the concept of “experimental language” already existed within wikipedia and therefore the move was not to a wrong article either. Furthermore, the material in “fictional presence” was deemed neither unsourced nor original research and therefore that same material should not be deemed so in the new, split off article. Lastly, the new page is not a content fork because it expands on linguistic relativity and, certainly, the new page is not a POV fork. Which is why I reverted your edits.

Hpvpp (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Syed Tirmizi

You've warned this user before, and his most recent vandal edits include some nasty BLP libel. Just thought I would bring it to your attention.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 already took care of that guy. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Learning the Ropes, Please Help

My name is Nathan Elequin, and after looking at the list of Private Schools in Texas found that my newly developing school, Veritas Academy, was not listed. This is my first article, and it has been trimmed twice due to unlisted restrictions. If I have not missed out on why this is happening, could you please explain it to me? I will make any and all necessary edits to change the page from a stub to a reliable, objective source. Your help is much appreciated. —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Elequin (talk • contribs)

What you keep putting into the article is information taken from the school's own website: notoriously not a reliable source, completely lacking in neutral point of view, and looking in many cases suspiciously like violations of the website's copyright. Look at articles about other schools, whether it be The Alliance School (Milwaukee) or Howell's School Llandaff or Dade Christian School or North Division High School (Milwaukee) for some idea of what we do and don't want here. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Doll

I believe your concerns have now been addressed. Might you stop by the AFd and offer comment? Or even consider a withdrawal based upon improvements? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What to do about you deleting me?

Dear Orange Mike, I have been trying constantly to create my own wikipedia page. I attended Hoover High School in Hoover, Alabama meaning I was on the hit MTV show Two-a-days as a main cast member. I can't help but notice your username deleting my account every single time I create it. Finally I created the account OrangeDanielle as it is no different from your account except for my first name. Hopefully you will mind your own business and stay OFF my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeDanielle (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The students on that show did not thus become notable; there is a solid reason that there are no articles about them. Don't blame me for your lack of notability. (And if you are in fact the "Danielle" of the show, she was not a "main cast member" in the show.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Probable vandalism directed at you

The article Julian (pornographic actor) has your username inserted recently, which is vandalism of the article and a silly attempt to slight you, from an IP that has done this previously. thought you should know and let you follow up. The question is, how did i find it? and why? answer: im a typical overly curious editor prone to following random links on hunches or on the orders of bob dobbs and the FSM.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agyenim Boateng

Dear OrangeMike,

I notice that the page has been altered and the photo has been deleted. Please review the proposed deletion of this page.

There is no conflict of interest in my first article on Agyenim Boateng. I am a lawyer in the UK. Agyenim is a separate entity based in Kentucky USA. I have read your guidelines and policies pertaining to neutral point of view and conflict of interest. I have provided some primary sources and secondary sources which are verifiable. I was having some difficulty in uploading the images. Please let me know why you think there is a conflict of interest and what secondary sources you are seeking. Legaleagle101 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting {{helpme}} gets any helper to respond - it alerts us. So, I've cancelled it out.  Chzz  ►  22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mike Konopacki

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mike Konopacki, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.graphicclassics.com/pgs/konopack.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agyenim Boateng

Dear Orange Mike

There is no conflict of interest in my first article on Agyenim Boateng. I am a lawyer in the UK. Agyenim is a separate entity based in Kentucky USA. I have read a lot of his articles and believed that he had notability. This is my first article. I have read your guidelines and policies pertaining to neutral point of view and conflict of interest. I have provided some primary sources and secondary sources which are verifiable. I was having some difficulty in uploading the images. Please let me know why you think there is a conflict of interest and what secondary sources you are seeking.

Legaleagle101 (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Katietdf

Since you seem to have your Username hat on at the mo, would you mind having a look at Katietdf (talk · contribs) - She has created TDF Fashion - not sure it is a blatant violation of the username policy so have not reported it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Conceptsinstallations

I noticed this new user User:Conceptual_Projects and then noticed who created the account [3] and thought it looked shady. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:TheZachDOTnet, his website, and two AfDs he started

First, good catch on TheZachDOTnet (talk · contribs) having a self-promotional username. I can't believe I didn't think to follow the link and see what was there.

Second, after your block, I did look at his website, and particular his About page, which included this quote: "Currently I am working on several projects including a ham radio facebook application, an autism advocacy and news website, a computer tutorial website, and a community for Christians with disabilities."^{[emphasis added]}

Now, two things he's done have been to nominate articles on autism advocacy groups/websites for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom (4th nomination)‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong Planet (2nd nomination)

I've tried to assume good faith with this user, but I've wondered about the nominations, and now I think there's a link to say the nominations have a conflict of interest. He's the only editor currently !voting to delete in those two discussions. Can you take a look at them in that light and see if they warrant either an early close or a disclaimer about the nominator? —C.Fred (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Amusement

After reading your comments on the speedy deletion of Aspies For Freedom I was quite amused by your quote from Zachary's website - is 'an autism advocacy and news website' going to advocate that people should seek to become autistic? ;-)

Love the orange pic at the convention by the way! Bertcocaine (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Delany

He'll be here for Clarion and Comic-Con. I'll be driving him to at least one event, so we'll have a chance to talk. I'll ask then. Kdring (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Garhwal Kingdom

I have just noticed that you've speedied Garhwal Kingdom per CSD-A1. I thought the context of the article was clear; it was about an historical Kingdom in the Himalayas. GBooks has plenty of sources. Salih (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A real article was replaced by an attempt at spam so inept that I didn't recognize it. Restored pre-vandalism version. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the article. Cheers. Salih (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out

Fair enough, I stand corrected. It is easy to fall into the pitfalls of common speech, which in this case is largely due to pitfalls of the archaic nature of the term. I was concerned, however, with the problem of the edit, which still stands that she herself is not an alumnus and lack of sourcing to indicate notability for the nephew. Usually alumni is used synomously with graduates (even if it is done wrongly), and on Wikipedia, it is problematic if we consider anyone to have attended to be listed (e.g. if the student attended for only 9 weeks). Maybe Wikipedia should just use the term graduates, but alumni is ubiquitous. Maybe it is because transfering is less common in colleges than high schools.--Jorfer (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald G. Martin (formerly Don Martin (public affairs)

• Re Donald G. Martin page - OrangeMike, would you mind re-editng the language about the "final warning" re vandalism instead to the "second warning" status please. It leaves wrong imporession as it is currently. Incidentally I have backed out of offering any more comments while letting the editors proceed with their vetting process. I let things get too heated yesterday. Don Martin 4804BT (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald G. Martin

AfD nomination of Donald G. Martin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Donald G. Martin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald G. Martin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message 01:13, 16 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetDreamz (talk • contribs)

Sweetdreamz-Re: Phil Judd

Bold text"Dear Orange Mike"

Thank you for your information to Sweetdreamz I already explained to 'Administrator Rodhullandemu' that there were no legal actions implied in my response. The reference i made to a libelous statement was in reference to one sentence which has since been removed as it was posted by a prejudiced blogger and the source was unreliable. I am still becoming acqainted with Wikipedia and the editing process. I realise that verifiable data such as court statements cannot be removed. If I wish to add an excerpt from court proceedings regarding a finding do I need to supply you with proof from the court transcript? This would not have been published in the news item referenced under the Conviction section of Phil Judd's biography. It is a relevant clarification of the proceedings and vindicates him of any sexual intent, which I think is crucial in BLP.

Also my affiliation with the subject Phil judd is unbiased and neutral. I am merely reporting facts that are verifiable. If I wish to re-instate an article I have written and which was removed, for reasons unknown, how do I go about this. I am referring to a submission I made on May 21st under the heading of Mental Illness, sub headed For the record - Criminal Conviction or a Miscarriage of Justice, which was edited out May 22nd. If I wish to add information that I have privy to in regards to his guilty plea for 'stalking' can this be done?

Thank you again for getting in touch Sincerely SweetDreamz 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI notice - Dmartinaus

I have initiated an Sock-Puppet Investigation on Dmartinaus at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus. If you have concerns or opinions on this issue, you may make those known in the "Comments by other users" section of the SPI. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Deprodding of Coastal States Organization

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Coastal States Organization, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! - Apart from your other legitimate concerns about the tone of article and possible COI, Google Scholar [4] does return a number of journal articles that probably proves this organization to be notable.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Professor Alan Riley

Hiya. I was going to add an article about Professor Alan Riley, one of the leading competition law scholars in the UK. He chairs the Competition Law Scholars Forum www.clasf.org . He has written widely on competition law issues in major law journals such as the International & Comparatively Law Quarterly, the European Law Review and the European Competition Law Review. Professor Riley writes regularly in the Wall Street Journal on energy and competition issues. He holds a PhD in competition law from the Europa Institute, Edinburgh University, is a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England & Wales, a Associate Research Fellow of the Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels and is a Professor of Law at the City Law School, City University, London.

But, when I started to create the article, I saw this, so I thought I'd better check with you, first.

Professor Alan Riley seems eminently notable, IMHO, and I can (& would) suppy wp:RS to back up his potted history. I have no wp:COI.

Please could you point me to the article deleted, and say if it's the same Alan Riley? Much obliged, Trafford09 (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The deleted "article" in full was as follows: Alan Riley. (RAZOR). AKA, skin head, skin. Married twice, two daughters, two stepdaughters, many jobs including HOLIDAY INN, B&Q, POST OFFICE. lives to love and loves to live! I doubt it's the same Alan Riley. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Think you may be right! Orft I go, to create the Prof. Trafford09 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RD2

Hello Mike. I noticed you deleted, what was probably a useful redirect for the time being, at User:Wandsworthpark/Wandsworth Park. RD2 only applies to redirects from the article namespace. Perhaps you could restore it, since it's still under discussion at the help desk and may cause some confusion. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh and come on, you can't really consider that a spam username or a spam userpage. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOBLECAUSE --Orange Mike | Talk 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE back at ya. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I wondered if you could help me set my account NOT to allow bad images to come up. My kids occasionally use wikipedia, plus I frankly don't want to see the images either. thanks a million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockey16 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure! Go to Help:Options to not see an image. By the way: Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I think I have been successful! Appreciate the help! Hockey16 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouting at User talk:Lakstudio

Please remember to remain civil and do not shout as you did in an edit summary to this user's talk page. I appreciate that the user has been involved in a long string of vandalism, but that'll most likely be cut short by the user being blocked soon; I've just reported them to UAA and if it keeps up it'll warrant a report to AIV also. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to be less bitey by limiting my expression of exasperation to the use of all-caps in my edit summary. I think it possible that a failure of communication across linguistic barriers is happening here; and I hoped that the use of all-caps, combined with the full 5-step warning system, might get the editor's attention. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is the issue here as it seems to me that the user's edits are simply vandalism, but in any case it seems unlikely that the user will understand very loud english any better than lowercase english ;) You might consider leaving a quick note on the talk page explaining the problem though, as handtyped messages are usually better received than templates. As I said though, this is likely to cease being a problem shortly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Gregory R. Ball

In reference to the page on Gregory R. Ball, and your comments to me on my Talk page, yes, I have a conflict of interest, and I am following the Conflict of Interest policy as noted on Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations page: " If you feel that the article contains unnecessary attacks or unreliable information for the purpose of portraying your organization in a negative light, please explain why and discuss it with other Wikipedians. Don't misrepresent who you are on a talk page. Openness and transparency will give you more credibility. Say that you represent the organization, calmly and politely present information that makes your case along with citations that back them up."

Verifiable content, such as the subject's election results and issue-based initiatives, that have been thoroughly sourced, have been blanked by unregistered users and by verified political opponents of the subject. To state specifically about election results, they are verifiable, they are encyclopedic, and it is thoroughly in the best interest and biased perspective of the subject's political opponents to hide the scale of political victories. The edits by these individuals include purposely inaccurate information to misrepresent the subject's place of birth. We also believe "sneaky vandalism" of the page has occurred, but we're willing to waive that for the moment.

The blanking by unregistered users puts unnecessary emphasis on the "Controversies" section of the page, which makes the subject look like a controversial and potentially dishonest figure.GBallNY99 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is this "we" you keep talking about? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"We" are an organization of volunteers. We need an administrative editor to look at the article and make the only decision allowed by Wikipedia policies, not an editor who changes the topic with inane, irrelevant questions. Verifiable, independently sourced content has been blanked from this article, which causes it to be non-encyclopedic. Do you care about the integrity of Wikipedia's content, or should we take this issue to someone else?GBallNY99 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying this account is used by more than one editor? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:HackersUnited

You posted a block notice on this user's talk page, but did not actually block him (no entries in his block log). He just created another attack page today. Is the original rationale still valid? Intelligentsium 02:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check Society of Composers & Lyricists

Hi OrangeMike, I queried on the talk page for this, too, but is this article better improved in meeting your requirements? Society of Composers & Lyricists Thanks! Bsteph1 (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

16:26, 21 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldari (talk • contribs)

DJ Yonny

There is currently a request at WP:AFC/R to create this page as a redirect to WNYZ-LP#Former Pulse 87 On-Air Personalities. However, I saw that you deleted a page with the same title just a few days ago, so I'd like your input as to whether or not the request should be carried out. 95j (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that there isn't even an article or redirect for Star & Buc Wild, this strikes me as a pretty useless redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I already created DJ Prostyle, but upon closer look, he seems to be non-notable as well. You can consider this a CSD G7 request from me and delete that one as well, if you want to. 95j (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RefineryNYC

The article I recently created for RefineryNYC was taken down for a 'speedy deletion' by you about a week ago. While writing the article, I made a constant effort to follow all the Wikipedia guidelines in hopes of not having any issues. I figured self promotion would be the only problem I might run into so I made sure I just stated the company's facts and didn't try to sell the company. I am curious as to what 'Wikipedia rules' I violated in my article. I am open to any suggestions anyone might have for me because I would like to add RefineryNYC to the Wikipedia database. (Videoediting (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videoediting (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

CSD template on User:ShawneM/Soul Style

I am doubly surprised at the CSD template on User:ShawneM/Soul Style

First, while not likely to ever be an article, its main offense apeparsappears to be that it is an essay, but that's not a valid CSD reason.

Second it is in user space, and I believe (and I think the community believes) that more leeway is granted in user subpages. Certainly copyright, and certain BLP violations are not a bar to removal, but there's nothing like that here. As a CSD neophyte, but one that wants to learn, can you explain your reasoning, as I don't think this remotely qualifies.--SPhilbrickT 21:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the author is working his/her way up to an advertisement for some new spiritual path, with nothing resembling sources. Nonetheless, you're right: this was not an appropriate tag, and I'll remove it if you haven't already. I do, however, feel that this is an obvious violation of WP:NOT#FACEBOOK; I just don't have access to Twinkle to do a xfd nomination at the moment. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

They weren't "working up to" it; it was an ad for her website, www.soulstyle.com. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Alin (Public Policy)

Hi Orangemike! Could you unblock and restore the userpage for User:Alin (Public Policy)? That account, along with mine and a few others, are being named like this so that we can clearly distinguish the editing that's being done on project content by Wikimedia Foundation employees. See the Wikimedia blog post about the public policy initiative; Alin is Annie Lin. Thanks!--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've done the needful. This was also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alin (Public Policy). –xeno^talk 23:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the confusion, Mike. We definitely should have been clearer about the Wikimedia connection for these accounts; we're trying to be clearer than we have been in the past about the distinction between personal editing by staff and editing in our roles as staff, which is the reason for the naming format. Hopefully some better practices for WMF account creation will come out of this.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:VideoEditing / RefineryNYC

First, thank you for getting back to me so fast! I am very new to using Wikipedia and I am working on fixing up my article before I re-post it once again. Thanks again for the advice/guidance! (Videoediting (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

User: Famoniq, the Liberty Tech page

Reply

and you are so wrong! before everything was deleted, I talked extensively about the classes offered!

By the way I go to liberty so I think I know a thing or two about the school and what is being taught there. Also I know a little about what the school has to offer. That took me hours and someone just went back and deleted every thing. . I need the information about the Alma Mater song and it wasn't there because it was deleted. All of that information is given out by the school and would attract people into a new school in Jackson, TN. I made sure everything was factual and again I would know because I attend the school. I'm not trying to be rude, but that wasn't right of you to to say that . And Now the page only talks about the athletic department because some one deleted everything. Before hand, it talked extensively about the academics offered and only touched a little on athletics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Famoniq (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 June 2010

Make suggestions for improvement at Talk:Liberty Technology Magnet High School. Improve the article, don't try to create a new one with the wrong title. The alma mater was removed because it's a copyright violation. Don't just dump the contents of the student manual into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

thebaptisttemple

Re, thebaptisttemple (talk · contribs) - you blocked this as spamname, which is fine, but you blocked account creation - was that needed? I believe they have no deleted contribs, so only made one edit - here - yes, spam, of course...but my question is, was the hard-block really necessary?

Because create was blocked, it greatly complicated things trying to help them in the live IRC help channel. I had to seek out an administrator - which is what I spend hours each day doing... and when Jdelanoy kindly lifted the creation block, they then hit auto-block. But JD had gone. Back to hunting, and in the unblock channel I found Tim Song, who removed the autoblock.

Yes, they could have used an unblock request too. But this is really quite challenging for new users, takes a long time, and it can make a potential new contributor just give up altogether.

We helped them in the live channel, and I've advised them, see User talk:Russell1889#Further to our conversations.

All I am asking is, please don't block account creation for simple spamname blocks, unless it is really necessary; it makes my life much more difficult when trying to help the new users. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't use the spamblock unless they've already created at least one spammy edit - which this one had. If it was just a matter of an unacceptable username, I use the softerblock: a much kindlier template. Do you feel that the spamusername block should not automatically include a create block? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know any more, to be honest with you; I've dealt with so many COI editors recently, I'm a bit burnt out with it all. You're right, they had made an edit, and what you did was quite in accordance with policy. The whole COI thing is, really, a nightmare. I've spent hundreds of hours trying to help them, and almost all the time it fails. I've been working on an essay, User:Keegan/Butterfly but...the vast majority of SPA's will never listen, no matter how patient we are.

For example - and it really is one of many - Burkeguy (talk · contribs) was paid to write Kathryn Troutman, and I spent at least 100 hours helping them, which which you can see on Talk:Kathryn_Troutman, User_talk:Burkeguy and my archives 1 2 3 4. More recently, they asked for an update, and I politely asked that they might just consider making one or two edits to other articles - User talk:Chzz/Archive 23#Troutman update - they have not done so.

Cases like this come up every single day. So, the creation block does indeed add one more complication, but...I don't know. I've battled spam for so long, trying so hard to make constructive contributors, that...well. Maybe we should just block them on sight; maybe it is not worth the efforts to try to get them on-line with the project.

I've always been one of the people trying hardest to help any and all new contributors become productive Wikipedians, but the ratio of the efforts required v. how very, very few are actually going to bother, beyond adding something about their own company, makes me question whether I'm wasting my time. Chzz  ►  22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

hmph.  Chzz  ►  01:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

SeaDream Yacht Club....SeaDream

I created the page: SeaDream Yacht Club today. I followed the exact format and almost the exact wording as the wikipedia page for Seabourn Cruise Line. The only thing I added were our awards. I wanted to add our logo and some pictures was having trouble doing so. I have been working on this for days. Its very hard for a novice. The page should not be remmoved. If anything I can remove the "accolades and awards" section. Becuase otherwise it mirriors Seabourn Cruise Line. In fact we are mentioned in the Seabourn Cruise Line page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.47.57.190 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My only complaint

When I say I am a bit of a deletionist, I mean that I hold articles here to higher standards of notability, verifiability, etc. than some other editors. (And yes, our servers are overloaded, and the problem's not getting any better.

Is that really true? My understanding is that storage space is virtually unlimited and almost free. For cost comparison, a terabyte external hard drive has dropped below 75 dollars. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the raw storage space (although you might want to contemplate how many terabytes we have nowadays); but rather the rest of the structure which enables us to access the file we want, when we want it, from the rest of the garbage. The more dung you have to pick through, the harder to find the jewels. I'd rather we spend more time catching up on the appalling backlogs (literally YEARS) of needed improvements in the existing articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

IQuote

Right after you blocked him, he added more spam to his talk page. Might want to shut his talk page off. Blueboy96 18:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RefineryNYC

Since the speedy deletion of my page, I have edited it, and now believe it can be posted without any problems. Before I do this...would you mind taking a look at it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Videoediting/Refinery#External_Links) Please let me know if it is OK and if not, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks (19:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videoediting (talk • contribs)

Just passing by and saw this. The draft does not contain a single reference from a reliable source to demonstrate notability. Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:CORP. Without references it will not survive long in mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You should take a look at WikiCompany which does not have a notability requirement. – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Master Piano Technicians of America

Hey there! I see that you tagged this article with refimprove and problematic. As I would like for the article to not be deleted, I am looking for more sources, but would like to point out that I have listed three; one being the organization's website, and the other from a UK piano website and the book "Pianos: An Encyclopedia." I would think that especially the book would satisfy the notability requirement. What would be considered a good number of references to cite? Thanks for the help! Pianotech (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this post I have added another reference for a total of four. Pianotech (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Another "Make it better"

Hello Orangemike. I noticed that you blocked "User:Make it better '10" due to the political statement of the user name. I wanted to make you aware of another username in the same vein. User:Make it better 2010 was editing a few days ago on the Meg Whitman article. In fact there is some evidence that this is the same editor due to the similarity of the names. As you will see from the edit history here Special:Contributions/Make it better 2010 they stopped editing on Sunday and there is no way of knowing of they will edit again. I just wanted to make you aware of this situation so thank you for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting an old request

Hi OrangeMike, you may remember an earlier discussion between us about the article I wrote for ECA&D, a European climate assessment dataset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weatherlands/European_Climate_Assessment_and_Dataset_%28ECA%26D%29 At an earlier time you cited a conflict of interest (see My Talk page) because I am one of the members of the ECA project team (though I play a very minor role and my name does not even appear on the website under 'staff'). The last time that we spoke was regarding addressing the conflict of interest issue but I have yet to receive any solution to the problem. Can you please help me with this? We'd very much like to get the article green-lit. We also spoke about the 'red links' on my page and I will fix those by adding external links rather than direct links within the page, as I am under the impression that that is what you suggest, but I will wait for the conflict of interest issue to be addressed before doing so.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Weatherlands (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to go, and I moved it into articlespace. External links are strongly discouraged in this situation; I left the redlinks as they were, as redlinks can be an indicator that we need a new article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Woot, thanks Mike! Okay, I will leave the red links as they are, but also add the links at the bottom. Yay! Weatherlands (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:ApprenticeUK

Hi there. I see you took care of that... interesting userpage. You may be interested in User:MelonaWarren and User:LemonZebras who seem to be sockpuppets (along with a whole pile of IPs) of the same user. I was considering doing MfDs for the lot, but couldn't make heads nor tails of them at all. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Best I can decipher, it seems to have been some kind of bizarre role-playing game or something.... --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Internet of Things

Hi Orange Mike. I am curious what kind of companies are out there for M2M, Internet of things, Cloud computing. I came across this article: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/6_geeky_devices_connecting_the_internet_to_your_things.php, which is why I listed some companies in my previous entry before it was deleted. Is there a way to incorporate these companies w/o having the entry deleted? internetofthings (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ReadWriteWeb posts are not necessarily reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Thank you for your quick response!! I am new to the Wiki community. I have been a long-time Wiki user, and thought I should give back to the community! Would articles from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/01/26/26readwriteweb-arrayent-called-the-cisco-of-internet-of-th-13145.html be reliable? Talk 18:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

NYT articles are better evidence of notability, for certain; but we need more than one mention of the company. See WP:CORP for further guidance. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my ignorance, but I found a couple of "reliable sources" for these companies. Do I reference them next to the company's name? Have multiple references next to the company? thank you in advance. http://www.drdobbs.com/embedded-systems/225701625 internetofthings (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

re: "subject's wishes"

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

13:53, 1 July 2010

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 14:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Worthless Threats

Wikipedia fully allows OBVIOUS conclusions to be reached by editors, without them being threatened with termination for "synthesis". And I do not need a source to say that 1+1=2, either. So, if various religions claims are widely known, such as claims regarding souls and Judgement after death, why is it not obvious that from the religious point of view, the soul is the essence of a person, and the mere human body/mind is nothing more than a means by which a soul exercises free will, and thereby becomes Judge-able? Why is it not obvious that as soon as a Genuine Artificial Intelligence is built, that always passes the Turing Test, the Philosophy of mind branch of human reasoning will insist that the definition of "person" can no longer be limited to humans only? Finally, why is it not obvious that if the Moon Treaty exists in spite of the lack of technological capabilities talked about in that treaty, then other legal issues that will likewise arise from future technical abilities might as well be tackled now instead of later? --such as devising a definition of "person" that will be accurate no matter what, for the next trillion years of human activities. Even if there aren't any non-human biological intelligences in the entire Universe for us to someday meet, future abilities like past abilities can be acquired/lost (for evidence, see the Dark Ages article, or any of many scenarios concerning the possible consequences of World War III, or even tales of Atlantis) --with one possible result being the well-known consequences of evolutionary divergence should groups of humans ever become isolated on different worlds of different stars. I recently read that Neanderthal genes had been sequenced enough to learn that while paleontologists regard them as a different species, they were not quite so evolutionarily diverged that they could not interbreed with homo sapiens --a horse/donkey situation, perhaps. Given enough millions of years of interstellar separation/isolation, it is practically guaranteed that sufficient genetic drift will occur to utterly prevent interbreeding among isolated groups of our descendants. Who will then decide which group consists of the humans/persons, while the rest are not? A thought can be obvious-after-the-fact, which means that even though Person A might not have thought of something that Person B thought of, as soon as B tells A, A can agree the thought was obvious. How many times in your life have you been either Person A or Person B? What I wrote on the various "person" talk pages was all OBVIOUS stuff, to anyone who dares to think about such things! V (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said: original research and synthesis has no place here. That's not a "threat", it's a statement of principle and a warning that you're in violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm...interesting...you can make anyone in violation of something if you change the rules enough. I'm quite sure once upon a time there was something on that page about conclusions that were obvious to anyone. V (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Crime in Italy

Hi, Here is an edit I wanted to ask you to have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime_in_Italy&action=historysubmit&diff=357111606&oldid=356575422 I mean to mafia definetly exist, but I do not think this edit is helpful. How do you think about this edit? (also the Vietnamese or Turkish Mafia in Germany have nothing to do with crime in Italy to my mind).-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamization&action=historysubmit&diff=365717901&oldid=361707711 Here is another questionable edit. Okay, I will stop reading his edits now because they are just annoying, but I hope someone keeps an eye on him.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 20:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your help on the False positives page

It's not that I've lost interest, I just have been very busy lately due to unexpectedly heavy workload at work. I should be back to normal within a month or so. Thanks for helping make my time on Wikipedia much less stressful. —Soap— 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

db-g12

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Deletion of Jonathan Kane: The Protector. Thank you. --TFOWR 08:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Horrible, impersonal ANI template :-( Sorry. The executive summary is: you deleted Jonathan Kane: The Protector as a copyvio; editor says it wasn't spammy; I'm bridging the gap between "is copyvio" and "isn't spam" ;-) TFOWR 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

reversion of "vandalism"

Hello, Orangemike. Could you please explain the reasoning behind your reversion of the 25 edits of the account Wildscamp? I realise the account was blocked in accordance with our COI policy, but none of the edits exhibited COI, and were, in fact, productive. Thank you, PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Hastings Mutual Insurance Company

In researching the history of my current company, my summer intern has uncovered a nice history of Hastings Mutual Insurance Company. It has also been noted that a mention of Hastings Mutual on the Mutual Insurance page does not link to a created page, like several of the other listed companies have. Is there any way to turn the information I have over to someone for potential creation of that page. This is not an atempt on my part to advertise, since we don't sell directly to consumers anyway. Just looking to put good use to the historical information that we have. --Jhalquist (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that Hastings is sufficiently notable to justify an encyclopedia article, make the suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Businesses and organizations. Note, however, that whatever information is used to write the article must be verifiable, published information from reliable sources. Also: be sure to fully disclose your conflict of interest in the matter in your request, just as you have with me here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Corpus Christi (band)

This one survived a deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Restored; thanks for the note! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sister Sin

This is another one that was kept at AfD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Restored; thanks for the note! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yamaharaptor

She says she's just a fan and has no connection to Yamaha, so I'm going to allow her to change her name. OK with you? Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not presume

...to accuse me of bad faith to any degree. Every action that I took regarding that article was completely within both the letter and the spirit of every policy and guideline on the book. Was I dismissive of the scattering of one- to two-sentence mentions in multi-hundred page books? Yes, because for the ones that weren't drawn from works of fiction, per WP:GNG such mentions are explicitly categorized as insufficient to establish notability. Something may be the best known of its kind but if no one's bothered to write even a single source that significantly covers it then it isn't notable. An award given by a regional society dedicated to a fringe activity, which society itself is barely if at all notable, does not establish notability. "Banned From Argo" is no more notable than my Aunt Mabel's blue ribbon jam from the county fair. I stand by the nomination and I stand by my actions, and I am disgusted that as an editor of long standing you would lower yourself to making baseless charges. Don't do it again. Ever. Otto4711 (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket

Hello OrangeMike, There is an user, Squash Racket, that accused me of sockpuppeting and therefore is reverting the contributions that I brought to one of the article for the sake of the historical truth. Can this user be stopped to behave that way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daccono (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello OrangeMike, There is an user, Squash Racket, that accused me of sockpuppeting and therefore is reverting the contributions that I brought to one of the article for the sake of the historical truth. Can this user be stopped to behave that way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daccono (talk • contribs) 06:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Daccono" is User:Bonaparte and/or User:Iaaasi. The latest — very recent — blocked accounts are User:Karpatia1 and User:Zzzsolt. Additional note: the ethnicity of John Hunyadi was one of the favorite topics of User:Iaaasi/User:Bonaparte. Squash Racket (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Daccono (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)As I previously stated Squash Racket is bringing false accusations. OrangeMike can you please check in order to confirm that I'm a different person? Thanks a lot!

Daccono (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Hello again OrangeMike! I'm a very new user and I would like you to help me on how to demonstrate that I'm not a "sockpuppet". Tell me what I need to do and I will.

User:Kalt wie stahl

You blocked this racist editor for 31 hours but gave him an indef blocked template. An indef block is ok with me, but which did you mean? It was mentioned at ANI in a discussion about an article of his that's been deleted. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning oral cancer, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 18:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Jeffrey Vinokur

A new article came up: Jeffrey Vinokur came up on WP-Wisconsin. Would you please take a look at it. I am not sure about it especially the science part of the article. I hope you are well-Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

Please note that WP:MOSBIO states that xxx-born should not be added to the lead sentence. Please don't edit war over Russian vs. Soviet, just remove it. Yworo (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we will have better luck preventing edit wars by simply removing it when it gets added. :-) Yworo (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry; Steve and I know each other in real life, and he's not that kind of guy. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not worried about that, just about being consistent on what we do when IP editors inevitably add it back. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary Sr.

Please explain to me as to why you erased my article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a blatant copyright violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well to be honest it took me all day to create that page and instead of helping me comply you all unjustifably erase the page after repeated attempts to ask for help... Yall know what yall are fdoing when you guys attack new pages... every time I add the information to rectify the problem you or another admin now delete the page... this is becoming very frustrating... I keep seeing that there is a copyright infrengement from the temecula gospel fest which is another website that is using the bio that I created for their puropses... Instead of erasing y artcle or and posting these Speedy Deletion tags, Help Me COMPLY Pease help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

saintstephen

Back in 1997 you deleted a page saintstephen regarding a notorious occult author. Could it be recreated without copyright violation?

Just wondering 174.27.189.235 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Only if reliable sources are available and the subject is notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Morthland

Hello Orangemike, I need your help with the Richard Morthland page. You deleted the page on the basis of no notability -- he is an elected official running for another office. I thought this would be a good way to contribute. Check out another page made by a wikipedia type: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=189588 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonthn (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Members of county boards are not notable. He would only become notable if he won his election. Read WP:POLITICIAN for details. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.""

This is a front page major news story: http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-rock-island-county-pay-raises-052410,0,5691498.story And this is the Chicago Tribune's profile: http://primaries2010.elections.chicagotribune.com/editorial/richard-morthland/

No. That's a TV station covering a political event, and quoting Morthland as opposing it. TV stations don't have front pages, they have soundbites. The Tribune piece, on the other hand, is an editorial endorsing Morthland: neither neutral point of view nor reliable source, since they have a vested interest in making their candidate sound good. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of a political junkie, I think it could make a good article with your help. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonthn (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Try creating articles about the notables (i.e., members of the legislature past and present) who do qualify for an article, but don't have one. This is a reference work, not a newspaper or candidates' directory. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary Sr

You might not care (and if you don't, that's fine), but the page you speedied and salted, Gentry McCreary Sr., has been resurrected as Gentry McCreary Sr, with the same copyvio intact, and created by a sock account no less; the original account is User:Dapub12. IP 24.126.214.136 has a similar habit of blanking templates. I am the only one reverting copyvio additions and template blankings on this page, that's not really a role I relish. The sock investigation page is also pretty backlogged. Maybe you have a second to look this over? Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Instead of you being difficult why dont you look over all of the information and you will find that nothing is wrong... All of the information is found withing the references... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabishop (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

protection

Many thanks Mike. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Brandeis

It is a valid unique point of pride for the institution, which deserves mention. The assertion does in fact have more reliable sources: for instance, "...one of the only undergraduate law journals in the country" (The Justice - the independent student newspaper, which happens to be listed in the external links). Also, the preface to the law journal itself states: "Brandeis University is a perfect place to start one of the first undergraduate law journals in the country. As others [i.e., Alan Dershowitz] throughout this issue point out, the title 'Brandeis Law Journal' has more than one meaning; it can be 'Brandeis University Law Journal,' and it can be 'Louis Brandeis Law Journal.'..."

The publication is registered with the Library of Congress as such.

I understand where you were coming from when you said this was an unsourced vanity. This was not, however, one of those typical "wikipedia" unnecessary/over-the-top/unreliable claims.Goingforthetruth (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, OK, just saw your message to me, thanks! So, do these sources suffice?Goingforthetruth (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure if that's fair. There are many sources in the rest of the "Student Life" section that are "a Brandeis U. source" (footnotes 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, and 51. Not to mention other footnotes in the rest of the entry.) Looks like sometimes it's reasonable for an institution to use the information it has gathered in its own sources (here, the articles and law journal's articles themselves) to make a statement about that institution's doings. There also happen to be other statements in "Student Life" about student groups, which do not even list sources (see the paragraph that mentions the a cappella groups, the debate team, etc.). You do have more experience than I do here, and I respect that. If you have a logical perspective that can explain a meaningful distinction between the law journal statement and those other statements, then we can revisit this maybe later in time. Otherwise, seems like either the law journal fact should be put back in or all those others should be taken out. (By the way, I'm not sure if this changes things, but I just wanted to clarify: the source from Amazon was not a review or a comment, it was the Publisher's official description.)Goingforthetruth (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A publisher is often highly unreliable (ask any author or agent). As to the rest: yes, a lot of that stuff is poorly sourced, and some of it is fluffy and should be discarded. But the difference here is the assertion of extraordinary nature; the more notable the claim, the more it needs to be sourced. "We have 3 a capella choruses" is unexceptionable; "Our women's a capella chorus has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine" would require substantiation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your user page

Rollback was a mistake.[5] Sorry about that. I think it must have been next to what I meant to rollback on my watchlist and I clicked the wrong link. It was not an attempt to boost your count to 371! Ty 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Foxfire

I combined information from the books and fund articles of foxfire into the magazine but now I'm unsure what do to with the other pages. Delete? Redirect? Let me know what you think and a proofread wouldn't be a bad idea either. McBrayn (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fashion Faux Pas

OrangeMike, this article was created as an university assignment. We are in the process of revising it based on peer and professor feedback and would appreciate if you could refrain from deleting it until at least September 2010, when we have completed the course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cross01 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

So I guess you're saying that once an issue has been resolved it cannot be removed from "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring."

I didn't know I was "disruptive editing." I thought I was cleaning things up. You people sure have a lot of rules that you bother explaining to anyone. How long does it take for an item to be removed from that particular noticeboard?

Is it possible for me to delete my account in a manner in which it disappears as though it never existed? Your users have made this an unbearable nightmare of an experience and I don't care to return nor do I think they should be able to post their rude comments on my "talk page." Can I have them reprimanded in some way?

Thanks for you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See the article Wikipedia:Right to vanish. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

On the instruction page that you pointed me to there are two comments.

"Of course the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind." "Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." These are a little confusing to me. Are these statements saying that a vanished user doesn't have the right to return but may return sometime down the road if they choose to? And if you return you can't have a new account name?

Maybe "retireing" is what I really want to do but it doesn't disassociate me from the hate and abuse that I've been forced to endure on here. If I choose to return I don't want to have to have anything to do with the abusive users that have already harassed me.

Why does a user have to endure that garbage, get blocked because of it, but then the real perpetrators of the crime don't get any sort of reprimand or blocking or whatever? These policies are not just. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

olord

1. You can return under your current name, if you agree to clean up your act; you just can't sneak in under a whole new identity. (You can, of course, request a change of username to one with fewer unpleasant associations; you just can't conceal your prior identity.)

2. You've never been met with any hate; you were subjected to nothing more abusive than a spot of brusqueness harsher than that which should be meted out to a newcomer (see WP:BITE). You seem unable to accept that we have certain moderate standards of editing practice and behavior, and a massive, unsupported rewrite of an article in existence for the better part of a decade did not meet those standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing my talk page

Is editing my talk page by removing disparaging remarks and harassment considered vandalism? Or am I free to edit my talk page as I find necessary? Architecture and Interior Design (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (I probably didn't do that right but lets see if it works)

1. You have the right to remove anything you want from your own talk page, as the very act of removal shows that you have read whatever it is you deleted.

2. Your signature came through fine. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I love this

"The spam filter stopped me from spamming, so it must be broken." Why do they so regularly report these as FPs? -- Rrburke (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sift&Winnow

Block was based on this discussion, which seems to have reached consensus. I'm not emotionally attached to the block if you think I misread the discussion or the discussion was flawed.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll re-look at it.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your issue ... the link seems pretty tenuous. Doesn't seem like rushing around is necessary, though, since the account hasn't editing in nine months. I'll ask Eurytemora why he was included.—Kww(talk) 02:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Notion (magazine)

Hi Mike. We need more opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notion (magazine) to form a consensus. Please invite other fair-minded editors, too, if you would like. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 11:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Outing problem

Orangemike, I could use your help - Commator has been trying to post personal information and other irrelevant/inappropriate links about me on an article about me after trying to spam several articles. He's been warned about it, and I've already had some of the relevant edits purged, but he's at it again. Could you handle this, as FisherQueen hasn't edited in a few days, and she handled this last time. Thanks! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

iYogi

Hi orangemike... sorry to bother you, but if you remember we had a little discussion about a page I created for iYogi. All of a sudden that entire page and its entries are gone! Any idea what's happening? I had discussed with you the format, and to use neutral context so as not to look like an advert, and was all OK, but now its gone. Is there any way to recover it, or do I have to start again? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridge87701 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:NawlinWiki deleted it on speedy deletion grounds A7: "No explanation of the subject's significance". There are millions of companies out there that are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. All your article did was say: this is who they are, this is when they started, these are the officers, these are some of their customers. None of that constituted an assertion of notability. Read WP:CORP for the standards that were not met. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

re:

Entry Ncsr11 I got your message, no offense. I do not know if this is your talk link: I'm interested in practical research purposes where I can reference Filipino. I purchased the book more than once and am in possession of a copy. I did not know the link was in violation. Why is the mother in Buenos Aires? —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

1. He says he learned lots about Ramon Magsaysay in school history class, the family speaks Tagalog at home; QED.

2. We never permit links to blatant copyright violations such as that website (which I have already reported to the Heinlein estate).

3. No reason the mom couldn't have been on a vacation trip to B.A. I've been to Den Haag; that doesn't make my daughter Dutch. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

re: re:

Ncsr11 Tagalog as native laguage, is in fact mentioned in the last few lines of the final chapter. That's why I always like to purchase the book (estate royalties). Found the site trying to do research on the meaning of "...Ochee Chyorna.": Russian song translated as 'Dark eyes'; but it brought the file right up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncsr11 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nita A. Farahany

You deleted an entry about Nita A. Farahany, which linked to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Commission_for_the_Study_of_Bioethical_Issues

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm5017 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it was an article about an associate professor, with no assertion or evidence of notability. I'd advise you to create a new draft in a sandbox, marshalling your evidence for actual notability and structuring the article appropriately in accordance with our Manual of Style, our guidelines for citations, and our guidelines for notability with regards to biographies of academics. Once it's ready, I'd be glad to look it over for you. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bozo85 speaks

DUDE Y DID U DELETE MY PAGE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozo85 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never had anything to do with you before, Bozo85. I do notice, though, that you seem to be interested in a band called the Black Hole Shredders. I deleted an advertisement for that band, based on our rules about promotional "articles"; that's the same reason an ad for the band was removed from your userpage by some other editor. I also blocked the account which had the name of that band, since you can't have an account with the name of a band, company, club, partnership, caucus, party, etc.; and because the account was only being used to promote the band (also forbidden behavior). Hope this answers your question. (And, dude, don't use all-caps; it's the online equivalent of yelling at people.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jagtag Deletion

Hello Orangemike, I assume that you deleted my contribution because you thought it was an advertisement. This was not the case, and there are other wiki pages that still exist with much more advertising on it than what I wrote for Jagtag. For starters, Velti is still on Wikipedia, and my initial edit of a Jagtag page had nowhere near as much advertisement and had twice as many references and external links. Why is this okay? If we cannot come to an agreement about what I can write about Jagtag as a company, that is fine, HOWEVER... we have a technology that utilizes what we call JAGTAGs, which are a form of 2D barcodes that are copyrighted and patented. We should be allowed to make a wiki page about what a JAGTAG is and how it works. This will not be an advertisement for us AT ALL, it will be a technical description of our technology that has notable references and research behind it. PLEASE let me know your thoughts on this issue in a respectable fashion. Thanks for your time and please get back to me as soon as you have a chance. User talk:Muzikman2787 —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

There is no "right" to promote yourselves and your products in Wikipedia; we very strongly discourage such efforts, and they can and do get folks blocked every hour of the day. If the technology is notable, somebody without a massive conflict of interest who is interested in this field, somebody ELSE, will put together an article based on reliable sources (i.e., not from your company's press releases and advertisements) and put it in Wikipedia to be improved. In the meantime, "Other crap exists!" is not a valid argument for the retention of any article; we already know that there is a lot of stuff in here we haven't had a chance to clear out yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I need your help

Orangemike, I need your help or the the help of another administrator if you are not available or willing.

I still have administrators in Wikipedia continuing to harass me over every tiny little thing that I do. They continue to block me over harmless little edits that I have made to my own talk pages. PLEASE can you intervene and do something about these people? I have honestly tried to manage my own pages but every move I make they just have to go and find something wrong with it and block me constantly. I don't care if they are able to hind behind Wikipedia policies. What they are doing is not right. I am not doing anything that is bothering anyone.

Please review both of my talk pages, and please find someone in this organization that can get these people to leave me alone. They truly are abusing their authority. The administrator in question now is called Toddst1. Please review my comments to him as well. He keeps saying that I am acting in bad faith when in fact he is the one acting in bad faith.

Thank you. Architecture and Interior Design (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION "Please review my comments to him as well" (located on the talk page of my IP address) If you (OrangeMike) see that my attempts to explain and stand up for myself are what Wikipdia considers "bad faith" would you please tell me exactly what falls under that category and explain to me why? Architecture and Interior Design (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To whom can I report this other administrators "bad faith" and abuse of authority?

You need to make up your mind, A&ID; are you exercising the "right to vanish" or not? You seem to be oscillating between the one and the other; and editing with and without signing in, an uncool habit to get into. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you're not blocked right now. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm so glad this is over. I've never been good at these computer related things. I honestly never intended to cause any trouble. I wish it wouldn't have turned out this way because I have a lot of knowledge and a lot of information that could have been useful on some of these pages. Please accept my apologies. Your help has been appreciated. Now I feel like I can leave with a clean record and a clean slate. Architecture and Interior Design (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Asylum (Disturbed song)article deletion

The song is absolutely notable enough. It's a new single released by the band. Why would it not be notable? Every other single Disturbed has released has it's own article. If you check the Disturbed official site, it is as notable as "Another Way To Die", "The Night", or any other single Disturbed has ever released. Check iTunes as well, "Asylum" is a single. It's part of a new album. I don't know how else to explain it to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebannedaccount (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Check iTunes? Rilly? What does being available on iTunes have to do with anything? The question is whether the single is notable in any way; most are not. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Biting newbies

Was this strictly necessary? Wouldn't it have been better to await a response from the user before blocking? Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

? This is a particularly obvious role account. They'd already created a spammy "userpage" about their club, and their post to the Help Desk also showed a promotional intent. If they'd not done so, then yes, a {{causeblock}} would have been the way to go. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I had seen the user page, and also the post at WP:HD. I'd already notified the user of the name problem, and was awaiting their response. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion?

I dont understand why my Bill Johnson (Ohio politican) entry was deemed not notable and didnt meet the guidelines. I was told after my first entry was deleted in the spring that I could put up an entry after the primary. There are some other candidates out there that are probably less notable that have pages. I had citations and noted this time that he founded a tax reform group in Ohio. What can I do to get this page up? thx Rococo4 (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Rococo4

A perfectly reasonable question! We don't carry biographies of people who are not notable in any way. A nominee for office is not considered notable just for being a candidate. This particular Bill Johnson has not done anything yet to make him notable. This may seem a little frustrating, but it is our consistent rule. Just being a nominee for office is not sufficient to establish notability; I'm sorry if you misunderstood this back in the spring. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree, but thank you for the explanation. 66.219.182.186 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Rococo4

Deletion of Mantri Developers

Ø The subject of the article is significant because the subject is one of the largest organizations of its type in the South of India – an important and very significant part of India, that by itself is larger and more populous than many countries of the world put together. Ø The subject has been involved in several landmark projects, a couple of which have been referred to in the article, with due references provided from credible third party sources.

Thanks, Manoj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.15.195 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No case was made that this company was notable in any way. Most property developers are not notable to anybody but their competitors. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Beryl Marsden

Speedy work with those tags! I've now added in the refs from Allmusic, which is generally regarded as reliable. Not sure what your concerns are about tone, which is no less bland than most of the other (350+) articles I've started, nor about verifiability - I'll happily add refs after every sentence if you really want me to, but it seems a bit over the top to me. Feel free to let me know what the problem is, or take down the tags if you think you may possibly have over-reacted. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Disturbed's Single Asylum

Can you tell me exactly what's wrong enough with the article to deserve a deletion? If you do, please tell me and I'll try to fix any problems. -Rambard (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's about a brand-new single. Most singles are not notable, and nobody has provided even a hint of an assertion that it is notable in any way; the article's author just assumes it must be notable automatically, since he likes the band. Notability for singles doesn't work that way. By the way: don't vandalize the article that way again, or you'll end up getting blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New Bespoke Movement/ Eyeontherow

Hello Orangemike.. Nice to 'meet' you too. I was just wondering if you could assist me and my page on the New Bespoke Movement, as it has several banners at the top and i believe they are unjustified would you let me know what you think if you get a chance. I look forward to your assistance. Eyeontherow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeontherow (talk • contribs) 09:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please could you re-review my article. I have made some adjustments in attempt to make it more neutral. regards Eyeontherow (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Eyeontherow

Sorry same again please. Thank youEyeontherow (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Eyeontherow

Right i have added further vanity fair referncing and altered the date format, please could you now give me your renewed opinion- sorry ths is taking up your time. Thank you again for all your helpEyeontherow (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Birkenkrahe

• hi, thanks for your msg. I have contested speedy deletion. After a number of edits, the article should no longer contain any unverifiable information or read like a resume. PrincessOfLyr, has offered to help improve/rewrite it from a neutral perspective, see here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xizao (talk • contribs) 22:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've, uh, I've removed the {{hangon}} tag...! Orangemike's message was from 2008: the speedy deletion request was declined a couple of years ago ;-) TFOWR 22:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit ??

Hello : I made an edit request on racism which you deleted after 7 minutes uptime as "anonymous nonsense" . Could you spend a couple of minutes to read my entry and reconsider an undo in the discussion ? I would like to see this theoretical entry really with or without citation .

Frankly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan197 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It was absurd speculation. Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information from reputable, reliable sources. It is not a venue for original research and speculation, nor for stuff you came up with one day. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jackson's 1974 Little League team

this was edited for not being notable. it stands as the only time in the history of the Little League World Series that a team from Jackson made it all the way to Williamsport. in light of the other sports entries listed, i respectfully disagee; but, i will not post this again, and i apologize for making the entry. take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.50.190 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike,

I sent you an email regarding an article I had written. Can you please read it and respond accordingly? I appreciate it.

Kbattick (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)kbattick

I believe I already did. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Preciseaccuracy and youtube

Hello, I saw you have removed copy rights violations. There are a few other places, where it should be removed:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was against the rules. These were 5 minute news clips from all the back in 2001 that weren't on fox's website anymore. Other users don't seem to have been taking the time to read the sources discussing these clips so I thought I'd make it easier for them timewise by posting the clips. The clips clearly helped demonstrate like the other sources that allegations of israeli spying in 2001 didn't fall under the category of "urban myth". I have no problem with taking them off.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever I may think of FAUX News, their copyrights must be respected as much as those of a Michael Moore or a Noam Chomsky. Anybody posting TV news on YouTube is failing to do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if the user did not mind I removed it myself to save you some work. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please take time to read about user:huey45 acting in "bad faith." Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Requested_Short_Summary_for_User_Huey45_acting_in_.22bad_faith.22Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat related: Any thoughts on WP:Video links would be cool.Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't news clips fall under fair use when used for improving a nonprofit encyclopedia during the process of creating the article?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please address my question regarding fair use.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Those don't fall under any fair use exemption. The text of the broadcast may be cited, if you can find a reliable source of the text, in Wikipedia articles. But that still doesn't make the posting of a copyrighted broadcast fair use. We must be cautious on copyright issues, as there are many folks out there eager to sue us for anything they can. A perennial problem is folks who photocopy copyrighted articles from newspapers, etc., then post the picture of the article and claim that since it's an original image, it's okay. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

These items have since been removed from the FOX News web site.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not (to put it mildly) a reliable source. More to the point, they are a third party and have no right to waive somebody else's copyright, any more than I could give you the right to post an entire Glenn Beck or Rand Paul editorial on your blog, just because I find it interesting! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_files_with_no_non-free_use_rationale? This is for the discussion page and the process of creating the article and not as a direct link in the wikipedia article. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Those tags are for files posted to Wikipedia itself, not for external files. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with mistitled page

Dear Orangemike-

I have created a page called "Worldwide Express"

Unfortunately, the page heading reads "Worldwide express" the issue being a lowercase e.

Is there any chance that you could delete the page so i can re-create it with the correct title?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Corey (cc121507) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc121507 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Cinoman

I'm on it, and expect success. While certainly the original poor writing style and the COI involved in Susan Cinoman were reason enough for concern... I figure that as long as the author stays away from it and it is furher improved through the course of regular editing, the project will benefit. Having found numerous sources, I have followed in the footsteps of User:Steamroller Assault and performed cleanup to create an encyclopdic style, and have added additional sources. There's more to be done, yes... but it's do-able. Care to assist? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Heads Up

I believe that this block is now redundant since the user has changed username. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 281° 28' 15" NET 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 258° 15' 15" NET 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Street Marketing

This editor seems to meet the unblock criteria here now. My intent would be to create a draft of their article in userspace and walk them through a11 and a7. I really don't see how they're going to surpass a7 at all yet. I would re-block if they move anything COI into articlespace without a consensus, or if they fail to rename. Any objections? Kuru (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You watch 'em, you walk 'em; I still think it's an obvious A7. Health marketing industry trade journals don't constitute very good evidence for the notability of health marketing firms. Where's the coverage in Barron's and the Wall Street Journal? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Si, si. You're probably aware of my deep, deep enthusiasm for working with marketers. Sorry if I wasn't clear above; article was an easy a11 - that can be fixed. Article is still an easy a7, and I don't think that can be fixed at all. I don't see anything close to WP:CORP. Willing to see if they can contribute anything else. If I'm wrong, then I expect a trout. Kuru (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename first; all else after. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; is non-negotiable. Kuru (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

FORTUS

Hi Mike, you had deleted 'FORTUS' artilce back in March : 02:57, 12 March 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "FORTUS" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)) this is a real product produced by Stratasys, Inc. and we have many published references. We would like it put back up on Wikipedia. I can provide references etc. if needed. Just need to know where to put them and how to get the article on 'Fortus' published again. Hhayes35 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

? Read the message again. No explanation of the subject's significance. Nobody denied that FORTUS exists; just that there is no evidence that it has significance sufficient to have an article about it in an encyclopedia. Frankly, the "article" was pretty much an advertisement anyway.--Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kila-mo 187

You deleted the article, but please also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#KMTDCfan89_repeated_removing_deletion_tags. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

Nghawes (talk · contribs) is claiming that you blocked them and is requesting unblock, but I'm not seeing anything on their block log. Am I missing something? Jujutacular ^talk 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he is mixed up between being blocked as a person, and the deletions after an AfD of HR-XML & HR-XML Consortium Inc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Still strange, since you didn't do those deletions. Thanks anyway, I'll inform them they are not blocked. Jujutacular ^talk 19:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I did recently put a spamuserblock on User:Chuckhr-xml, who was doing the same kind of stuff about HR-XML. Is this maybe a sockpuppet issue? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that is probably the case. I've already left a nice note there and was encouraging - so I'll keep an eye on them. If disruption continues I will block or report to SPI. Jujutacular ^talk 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Promotional edits

Hi Orangemike, I'm not sure if you'll be able to read this or not; but I wanted to inquiry on something. You mention that my updates are of Promotion based, and thus are reverted. Kindly advice on wiki pages such as Microsoft and Apple.INC . Arent they of promotion based as well or those article is being updated by 3rd parties instead? Regards, (Dovienya | Talk) 4 August 2010 (GMT+8)

The rules are the same for everybody. When we catch somebody from any company or organization, big or small, doing promotional edits, we revert and warn. This also applies to fans who aren't actually employed by the company; a neutral point of view is not optional on Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not "attacking,"/supposedly "YOUR business"?

Hey, mr. mike, dude, since when is it even "your business" to observe whether or not you think someone has just supposedly "attacked" someone else, even if via their own talk page rather than in an actual article? Good thing I actually WASN'T attacking him. If you still think I supposedly "was," then you should react that way to him, too, because anything I said to/about him wasn't any more "attacking" than anything he said to/about me.

MaxxFordham (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

that is because he is a administrator and hold the ability to block people when the attacks become severe. Please point out where I attacked you as per WP:NPA Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Orange Mike - you deleted my entry - I'm wanting to add my companies accomplishments that help small business owners understand marketing principles and human behavior -not advertise my companies services. I don't want to come-off as spam or advertising; is there or can you provide a quick template that will hold my hand during the process to create an Oevae Marketing Consultants article (approved). ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudgealtoid (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your obvious conflict of interest makes you the worst possible candidate to do this; and frankly, your edits just confirm this conclusion. See all the guidance provided to you at your talk page, User talk:Fudgealtoid. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Portmanteau is a "perfectly good word"

Hello, Orangemike. I recently made a minor edit to the page Fanzine, changing the word portmanteau to blend. I did not take the time to check the page's history, and so did not notice that you had reverted a similar change in July saying, "restore perfectly good word".

Portmanteau is indeed a widely used English word - it seems to be especially widely used on Wikipedia. One objection to this word from a linguistic point of view is that it is used in two different senses. In linguistics, portmanteau is a technical term used to indicate fused function words, such as Spanish al from a and el, or German im from in and dem. Blends such as fanzine are technically called "blends". In popular usage, the word portmanteau most commonly refers to this latter type of blend. I think people assume that "blend" is not well defined and that portmanteau is therefore more specific, but in fact blend is the preferred technical term, at least within linguistics.

I will not object if you revert my edit, but wanted to spell out my thinking in detail. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Society of Composers & Lyricists

Have I improved this article Society of Composers & Lyricists enough to get all those tags removed? Thanks! Bsteph1 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re "Conflict of Interests"

Hi Orange Mike... there is no conflict of interests with regard to my updating the Wikipedia article about the actor Nico Mirallegro. I edit his article because of an interest in him and his acting career. I am not a member of his family and I am not a crew member of any of the UK film companies which are making forthcoming films in which he appears. I am however, fortunate enough to be able to sometimes contact him through direct message on twitter. He is following me on twitter out of interest in my drawings of him.

I understand that Wikipedia must be updated without any biased viewpoints, so I write from a purely factual standpoint and try to provide links and references wherever possible. My last edit was to remove a duplicated mention of his appearance as a gay character in Moving On.

I also recently asked for help in the matter of trying to upload an image of him without incurring copyright issues. It would be nice to be able to add an image of Nico Mirallegro to his article, but I would like to understand the correct way to go about it rather than have another image deleted. I hope you can help.

Kind regards, Pinkyandrexa (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

COI question re: USO of NC

Hi OM! I see you've also been taking a look at United Service Organization of North Carolina. I noticed you had warned the author about COI, and was curious as to why (I'm not arguing - it's more curiosity. I'm a fairly newish admin and COI and spam are two areas outside my usual areas). Was it the nature of the edits (I got a wee bit annoyed when the multipleissues tag I'd added got blown away... I see you've added similar tags, so I'm less annoyed than I was earlier...) or was it something about the editor? Thanks in advance, TFOWR 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the s.p.a. nature of his edits, and the tone of his posts and his article, that led me to suspect a COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Incidentally, I don't know if you'll recognise me (I changed my username a while back), but you welcomed me back when I first registered ;-) Still here, still going strong, no longer got the sab-kitty on my userpage sadly...! TFOWR 15:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I remember, I remember... --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)