User talk:Orangemike/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16


My talk and user pages

Thanks for catching that, I wonder who the editor was I upset. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly weren't the only one. Tag 'em, bag 'em and forget 'em. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Good policy, I saw that the editor hit other pages. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


I am not saying that it does convey notability, just that it is a claim to significance, a lower standard than notibility.VERTott 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW this is briefly discussed at WP:LISTED. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, my expatriated friend. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

zChocolat (ZChocolat)

Hi there! I am new to Wikipedia and was drafting an article about a company I have ordered from in the past that had no Wikipedia entries yet. Per the instructions, I created it under my user page and asked to have it reviewed. I took a break from this project to try and find some references and then returned to find it had been moved out of the user space. Now it shows up on a Google search of the company's name, even though it has all these Wikipedia alarms on it regarding notability, tone, etc.

I see in the history that you have been kind enough to work on it. Can you help me understand how/why you moved it to the articlespace and what that actually means? I thought that, as long as it was under my User Page it was a work in progress that only I could edit, but I guess I was wrong. Second, how can I change the title? The name of the company is actually (little z and add the .com), so I'd like to fix that.

Also, I have some more information and can easily tone down what some see as the promotional tone. I did model it after pages for similar companies (Scharffen Berger, Godiva, Lindt, etc.). Can I go ahead and keep editing the content?

Thanks! YoDroz (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:YoDroz.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Luxury Stranger

I was browsing random articles and found Luxury Stranger. I've noticed you've reverted recent COI edits, but am wondering: is the band even notable? It looks like it could be put up for AFD, but I'm unsure because of the source from BBC. -WarthogDemon 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Could you review the above block. I have read their unblock request, and it seems on the up-and-up. Their explanation for how their username matches their personal website seems OK to me, and I don't see this as a huge deal, in light of the explanation. Is there any objection you have towards unblocking? --Jayron32 04:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Hi Orangemike, I have requested a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger, in case you wanted to comment there. OCNative (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've commented there. TNXMan 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Chandler Davis

Hi OrangeMike! Please provide a source for the statement that Davis describes himself as a former member of the Communist Party of the USA. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'd thought it was pretty much common knowledge by now; he was your classic red-diaper baby. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Caitlin Rose

If you delete an artist's article, it's probably good to delete their albums too. Dead Flowers EP and Own Side Now are both A9 now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Frances Jacson

Thanks for your input to this new page. For technical reasons (edit overlaps), please could you hold off for a couple of hours? I'm transcribing (and of course rephrasing) information from the ODNB article on her. I'll then look for further sources. Blessings. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Yugioh Decks

You missed the page. Face-smile.svg--intelatitalk 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for input on List Article


I would like your input on the List of Lew Carpenter cites at Talk:List of Lew Carpenter cites. It is attached to the article Lew Carpenter, which is a work in progress. I would appreciate your input to properly cite the information and where. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For my first "Sports" related article, I am learning some things the hard way ... Such is life. Thank you for your blunt honesty. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Triune Hypothesis

Thanks, Mike. I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed discovering The Truth. I'm a convert now! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Melanie Joy

Hi Mike, can you delete this again and possibly with a spoonfull of salt. Also it's not the same creator so I suspect a sock.

  • 10:30, 20 November 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "Melanie Joy" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
  • 10:18, 20 November 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "Melanie Joy" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

--Kudpung (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wisconsin witch hunt

Good morning-I came across a new article Wisconsin witch hunt. It was an article about someone who is involved in Wicca and wanted to be a chaplain involving the Wisconsin prison system. You may find this interesting-Thanks-RFD (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"States Rights": Code words edit


In regards to the “code word” edits. I have performed a search and have found no politicians that used racial "code words" during the last presidential election. There are however, talk show hosts, TV and newspaper articles suggesting that race was an issue. There are also groups like the “Birthers” to the “Black Panthers” that proclaim racism. But there were no politicians: like the "code words" examples present. My edits are factual and are in no-way an attempt to hide an ugly American past. I think the article is quite good and needs to be understood in the context of the correct era.

It’s wrong to ask me to find examples for another user (Malik). Malik has and can present his own evidence. Matthew.zellmer (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


22 Nov 2010 Malik added an example of "states rights" used as a code word for segregation, but the example article;, says the Gov. Rick Perry was very vocal against slavery and made it clear (in the article) that he is against segregation. I don’t understand Malik, he provided an article that DISPROVES code words being used today.

Matthew.zellmer (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike, Thanks for adjusting my changes; I will endeavor provide proper sentence structure and grammar in the future. Matthew.Zellmer 19:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.zellmer (talkcontribs)

This is speculative; but I believe Malik suspects, even more strongly than I, that Perry is like a lot of modern-day Southern Republicans in that he wants the votes of the racists, but does not want to openly appeal for them in the old Nixon-Agnew-Thurmond Southern Strategy style; and therefore Malik felt that this was damning evidence of Perry's real tactics. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Julian Jakobi

Would you please restore this article I was working on. It is not eligble for A7 as it clearly asserts notability - it states Julian Jakobi was Ayrton Senna's manager. It has already been speedy deleted when I was working on it by a different admin and restored, please could you now restore the article so I can continute working on it? Thanks.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored and moved to User:Pontificalibus/Julian Jakobi, so go right ahead, but make your case. Being the manager of a famous person (whoever Yarton Senna is) doesn't make you famous; we don't have articles on John Lennon's doorman or Tony Blair's barber. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on, a "barber" or "doorman" clearly doesn't have as much influence over someone's success as their manager. Anyway that essay you cite refers to arguments occuring in AfD, which is where you should have taken this article if you were unhappy about the subject's notability, as it's clearly ineligible under A7 which requires only some indication of importance. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't consider "the manager of X" to be an indication of importance. At any rate, it's restored; good luck with that. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Christmas with a Capital C

Yo, what is up? you kinda deleted this page without a discussing with anyone dude. I wrote the page and as I can re-call there were no Unambiguous advertising or promotion. i wrote the about the plot, whose in it, and the whole war on Christmas theme to it. how is that Unambiguous advertising or promotion? -- Hope to hear from you soon The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It reeks of promotional language, and the plot synopsis totally buys into the film-maker's spurious position. I've restored it anyway, but tagged it for improvements. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Panasonic KX-T article deletion

Dear Orangemike, I am frustrated that you deleted my contribution; particularly since you have motivated it by a suspicion that this is a commercial product promotion. I have no financial interest in the Panasonic phone systems, other than as a user. I have used these systems in three different small businesses where I have worked, and have generally been very satisfied with them, but I derive no financial benefit from others purchasing them. My reasons for wanting a page about them is twofold: - I would like to have a place where I and other users of these systems can find a quick overview - I think of these (now mostly obsolete along with all other non-VoIP phone systems) as deserving of a place in history like the rest of computer history.

Panasonic / National / Technics / Matsushita is a company with an interesting history, and the division that made these system has an especially interesting history that I would be eager to learn more about.

If this product like is not deserving, how do you justify an article about the "Panasonic JR-200" early PC?

I would like to appeal to you for either a better reason, or restoration of the article which I understand is within your power.

Lpoulsen (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Language like "These systems have a reputation for being among the easiest to set up for simple installations, because the factory setup 'does the right thing'. Like all full-featured business phone systems, they become complex to setup when you want more complex setups." and "One of the features that endeared these systems to their fans was that although Panasonic produced proprietary telephones to provide easy access to the advanced features of the system, it would also work with simple consumer-grade analog telephones. This kept the cost down, since an additional employee could be accommodated with a $15 telephone from the nearest appliance store instead of requiring a $400 proprietary telephone." was grossly unencyclopedic, and had no place here. If you want to create a fansite for Panasonic phone systems, with praise unsourced other than to your personal opinion, then go ahead; but don't put it into Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Triton Productions - Deletion

Hello Orange Mike. Can you please let me know what we'd need to do to restore the page for Triton Productions? All of the images and events have been produced by Triton. I also sent you an email. Thank you. javier velarde (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

After a long discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triton Productions, this article you wrote about a company you (Javier Velarde) own] was deleted, as it is a non-notable local event-management business. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Out My Window

Hi Mike, when you get a moment could you please take another look at Out My Window? While it's still very stubby, I've added some news refs, and though some are newspaper blogs, I think this one in particular, a Toronto Star feature, combined with the others, helps to establish some real-world notability. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I've taken the liberty of removing the notability tag, as I believe it has ample WP:RS, now. However, please feel free to restore your tag if you still have concerns. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael (Mike) Davey, former Jamaican soccer player

Hi Mike: My name is Brandon Bradshaw and I received a "Unambiguous advertiseing" with the deletion of my article. I have revised the article to reflect a 100% neutral point of view (NPOV). Please advise as to steps I should follow to resubmit this article.

Thanks, Mikelld (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares about his engineering license number! Stop calling the subject "Mike"; don't use language like "Mike’s legendary “exploits” on the soccer field"; format the article properly per our manual of style and citation guidelines. I'll retitle the article ASAP to something more acceptable. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Article help request

Dear "Orangemike",

I am a chess fan and small contibutor to Wikipedia. A few months ago I made a major update to an article about a chess master and teacher who is very famous in my country, but because of different reasons, his Wikipedia page didn't exist and it has been deleted repeteadly. I was provided with a copy of the article in question which I reformatted and submitted for review. After that, the article was approved by Wikipedia contributors and put live on Wikipedia. Now, a few months later I received a message saying that since the article was previously deleted, it has been deleted again. My question is: Is there any way for this article to go Live again and who I may turn to, in order to request the article to be reviewed and reforematted even more if needed. Here is the link for the article in question - Thank you for your assistance!


Dejan Stoynov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesszorro (talkcontribs) 16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hoax deletion

Hello Mr. Orangemike. Why did you delete the article I created on My Brother, Borat? It included a reference to a NYT article and there are lots of other sources available. I would appreciate a restoration. Alternatively, an article on the director would be okay with a redirect to it. Thank you for your cooperation. Jagshemash! 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredoMurphy (talkcontribs)

I dropped Fredo a note,[1] suggesting he begin article in a sandbox, so that he'd have time to expand and source before moving to mainspace. I also let him know that the My Brother, Borat article, specially after its expansion and sourcing while at AFD, was retained after less than 19 hours as a speedy keep.[2] He should be happy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Jagshemash! I am happy, even though it was disappointing to get no response from Orangemike. Thanks. FredoMurphy (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Stella McCartney Page

Thank you for your message. I currently work for Stella McCartney and so does my collegue Hkingwu1 who has also tried to update the Stella McCartney page with the Stella McCartney Kids Text. If we are unable to update this section could the Stella McCartney Kids url link be added to the External Links section or could you please advise us on how to update this section correctly. I also noticed that a Ravenscroft32 and a Bigweeboy also edit this page, have you all been contracted by a member of the Stella McCartney Team to do this?

Many thanks 17:07, 30.11.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccajaneherd27 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be doing this. Least of all should you be doing this with the kind of sparkly glitzy advertising crap language which you posted to this article. We don't permit advertising in Wikipedia; the posting of advertising language is treated as a form of vandalism, and blocked just like any other kind of vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Carl Brandon Society

Hi Mike. I'm a bit worried about all these red linked award holders. IMHO, even if it's true, if it can't be proven, they shouldn't be there. --Kudpung (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

They were shortlisted, that's not at issue; they just don't have articles. Sometimes, as has been said, a redlink is an indicator that we need an article. Sometimes they're just obscure nominees (like a couple of the Hugo nominees over the years). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


As I suspected, he's claiming no affiliation with the team whatsoever in his unblock request. I'd be inclined to unblock without the username change as long as he makes this clear on his userpage. Thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to insist on a change of username, to PenPanFan or something; otherwise, it's just like any other username which is the name of a collective body. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles on books and authors

Dude, re this, I know how people feel, but I've come across a veritable sea of non-notability. The fact is that there are dozens of books which have articles and aren't notable enough for them. I'm just trying to clean up as much as possible without having to go through deletion discussions. I mean, Wikipedia:Notability (books) sets a pretty high standard. And BTW, the one you reverted is one of the better ones. But it isn't notable unless someone finds a source. And I looked and didn't see even one. I mean seriously, given the sources already given and a google search, do you think it can meet this standard?:

The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4] BECritical__Talk 17:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't know what kind of google-fu you're practicing, but I find discussion of this book and its sequels in Tuck, Nicholls, Searles, Buker: all the standard reference books. There's also at least one critical article in Russian (which I don't read) "классика социальной фантастики или один из первых образцов отечественной героико-социальной фэнтези?", a critical analysis comparing it and the Strugatskys' Hard to be a God! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: the above article may be in Ukrainian, not Russian. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm guessing those are lists of fantasy fiction. But I doubt they do critical analysis etc., which is what we'd need to meet notability. Are you talking about hardcopy sources? BECritical__Talk 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Duh!!!! I guess you are (to put it gently) not acquainted with the standard library resources for SF & Fantasy? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So you're agreeing with me in saying that such works don't offer critical analysis and that they therefore don't by themselves offer sufficient notability? BECritical__Talk 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not! I'm talking about The Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute and John Grant, which specifically discusses the series' evolution; about Peter Nicholls' The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: An Illustrated A to Z; about Baird Searles' A Reader's Guide to Science Fiction; and about Derek Buker's The Science Fiction and Fantasy Readers' Advisory: The Librarian's Guide to Cyborgs, Aliens, and Sorcerers, which specifically recommends this series in the category of "science-fiction and fantasy blenders". --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you have it right then, as long as they have analysis (: BECritical__Talk 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello there

You might notice I took the liberty to edit your comment on the Help desk, to remove the caps lock, so as to not overwhelm or for you to be perceived as "angry" and "yelling". Feel free to revert if you think it was inappropriate of me to do so. Thanks! «CharlieEchoTango» 04:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd done a quick cut-and-paste from a Wikipedia page where that text was in all-caps. No problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


You don't understand, he's reverting a majority of my edits and given no probable cause. He refuses to listen and tells me to get lost whenever i bring it up. I only want him to stop and leave me alone. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:17 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Discuss the edits on the talk pages of the individual articles. Each article is a separate case. Accusations of hounding against a solid reputable editor are not likely to be heeded; but even the best of us makes errors in specific cases. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

HE KEEPS ERASING THEM. No matter how many times i confront him, he just deletes it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:19 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See my response at the ANI discussion you started (summary: "Good work, Ckatz"). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help and input on the Ralph Nader article. (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive

I know I have the best of time and space

Are you trying to AfD this article, or speedy delete it? Speedy delete seems like the better choice, and I don't see the AfD that was attempted to be added here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dani Johnson

Thanks for speedy deletion of this article - as a novice member of the Biography Project its nice to have ones judgement affirmed. - Whats to stop Dani Johnson from recreating the page? I read somewhere in the last few minutes that its been recreated before. MarkDask 15:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is a little NaCl. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hahaaaa - yaaay. MarkDask 15:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reinstating/recreating user page:

Hi Orangemike,

My user handle still shows up in red and this text appears on my user page: "A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

  • 13:31, 23 November 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Books2read" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)"

So I'm writing to you to make sure I don't get in any trouble recreating my user page. May I go ahead, and will that turn my user name back to blue from red, which seems to indicate a problem editor?

Thanks much, Books2read (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Books2read

Actually, many editors never bother to create a userpage. But yes, you can certainly create a new userpage. I'd suggest that you include a small-print disclaimer stating that your account is unrelated to any business or website of that name. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike,

Thanks much for the help and advice. Will creating a new user page take the red out of my user handle? I looked up Books2read in the UK, and they appear to have gone out of business, but I'll use a disclaimer anyway, to avoid any future problems.

Books2read (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Books2read

Personal attacks

Stop calling me a vandal. Thank you. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When you stop vandalising, I'll certainly be glad to. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
When you stop deleting my comments which made a point and contributed to the discussion?
This is very poor, uncivil, and destructive behavior on your part that really surprises me given your large positive record of helpful edits to articles. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Your sarcasm was couched in such gibberish that it looked like vandalism; it certainly contributed nothing to the discussion. Additionally, you kept removing my remarks without explanation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I politely ask that we continue this discussion on my talk page rather than yours. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


It was suggested by Jezhotwells (talk) I talk to you about the move of TfGME. You moved the page to Transport for Greater Manchester Executive before I had the chance to reply to him about the fact that this is still incorrect, which even the article creator agreed. Could you possibly move this to Transport for Greater Manchester? Also, do you know whether it is ok to move over a redirect in such a fashion as I wanted? Thanks ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Shirt58's talk page.
Message added 11:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sir, fyi

Sir, your attention is required here. Sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia Entry

Dear Orangemike,

I created the page Valeri “Tiger” Lilov on Wikipedia, which you recently deleted and was advised by other Wikipedia contributors to contact you and try to explain you what they told me that this article is actually valid for Wikipedia. Please review our discussion at “Deletion Review” and advise me on how I can get this article back, given the many “accumulated liabilities” its subject has amassed in the eyes of Wiki admins, one of whom is you Is there any chance for this subject to be published, given that he is a notable chess player and trainer, who is popular around the world with his particular type of effective training, ChessBase DVD publications, major tournament commentaries, etc? In addition, isn’t it biased to judge a chess player’s notability only by his FIDE title? An ELO of 2402 is considered one of an average International Master (IM) rating and the subject has two covered IM norms, meaning he needs one more to become an IM.

Here was the main problem. The first user who started that article obviously did not put it on the “Articles for Creation” section but directly online, and while the article was still under construction, the Wiki admins, simply deleted it. Then a deletion discussion was sparked after debates on why they deleted the unfinished article. It was again deleted, despite the ongoing process of its improvement and after that, no matter what the contents of the article was, someone just came up and deleted it, just because a previous much worse and not following any of Wikipedia’s guidelines version was “deleted thru deletion discussion.” You can check the Valeri Lilov articles history to see for yourself. I think this looks like a loophole. Please, let me know, if you have any constructive solution, so that I or anyone else, doesn’t spend any more time improving this article, if it is doomed for such a reason…

Thank you for your valuable consideration! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Chesszorro|Chesszorro]--Chesszorro (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

1978 Holiday In fire

Hi. At first I thought, how on earth is this notable, but I did a little scouting for sources at it is at least written about in several books and is listed by the national fire agency as one of only a few fires which killed 10 or more people here. Granted it is on very weak grounds for notability in its own right, I would recommend an article is created documenting the fires listed on that page with a summary of each one in a general history of hotel fires article in the United States and that this article is merged into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again: "Fire Incidents 1934-2006 in Hotel Fires in the United States as Reported to the NFPA, with Ten or more Fatalities" is so narrow a sieve as to encompass a lot of non-notable fires; I feel this is one of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In your POV maybe. We don't write encyclopedia article based on our views. We write articles based on breadth of sources and coverage. Tons of reliable publications claim the majority of the fires lists by the NFPA to be very notable events which were broadly covered in newspapers and books like the MGM Grand Fire etc. The Holiday Inn fire is one of the least notable if not the least notable in that list granted and is really borderline in the notability stakes but History of hotel fires in the United States once fully written will be perfectly encyclopedic and comprehensive. The hotels covered combined have hundreds of reliable sources, covering in Life magazine etc♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a truly notable fire!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My union local includes the fire/crash rescue specialists at one base here; I respect them and their eternal foe. But this is, as you acknowledge, a very marginal case. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability Flag

Someone put up a notability flag on the hyperoffice article. I added some new citations. Please see if the flag calls for removal. Thanks Timshear09 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Deletion of User:Narrabase

Mike, a side effect of your blocking of the account User:Narrabase was that the user with a 28-month edit history cannot now change to a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. There, logging into the old username is a requirement. Can you unblock Narrabase long enough so that the user can start the process to change to a new name? Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at this point, with Narrabase/Judy Malloy's history of exclusively self-interested edits. The instructions for asking for an unblock in order to change username are already on her talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the reply. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Block reason for User:

Hi! You might want to revise the block reason you left on User talk: Anon IPs are not usually in violation of account naming policies. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo fixed; thanx for noticing. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

You helped previously. Users are whitewashing information which all comes from the references they have included in the article ? Pinto is not well known in Israel and became famous after a mysterious death —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talkcontribs) 01:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't repeat hearsay, which is all that is. Yworo (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it hearsay ? Its referenced in the sources you post in your articles. Its taken precisely from the articles you present as fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talkcontribs) 02:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an allegation made by a unidentified "friend of the family" of the deceased. We don't repeat ridiculous anonymous attacks against a living person. Curses don't exist. They don't kill people. Accusing someone of such a thing doesn't make it true. It is, however, defamatory and we don't repeat defamation, especially when it can't possibly be true. It's just a cheap shot by a cowardly accuser who isn't willing to allow their name to be associated with it. Yworo (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There are repeated articles citing it and countless religious figures who claim it to be true. So even without the curse why not include that he became prominent after the mysterious death that sounds like a fair compromise in that case ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is this user still allowed to make edits on the Rabbi Pinto page? It's been found that he uses several accounts (it even says so on his user pages!) in an attempt to mask his bias and has been blocked or reprimanded from those accounts for vandalizing, posting libelous material, and for edit warring (on more than one occasion). The majority of editors/contributors here disagree with practically everything he does. Why is his allowed to continue making changes? If you look at his body of work, this is a trend -- it's not specific to just this page. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Block of FamilyHarvest

Re your block of FamilyHarvest -- obviously you're right on the COI and the spamming, and a block is merited. But I wonder if it's the best approach strategically. As things stood (i.e., without a block), the edits are an obvious problem and thus easy to revert, without any need for good-faith consideration. If the editor simply creates another account with a less obvious username, perhaps the situation will be harder to manage. It's just a suggestion -- I won't mind if you don't agree with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Lets say I accept not listing the other stuff - is the bottom not relevant @all ? Thank you: Rabbi Pinto Prominence: The page is biased and whitewashed. How can he be such a great worldwide leader if the sources cited say the following: The Forward article says Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.”

Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talkcontribs) 04:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Note: This user has brought this up at several noticeboards and user talk pages. Netalarmtalk 04:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please restore Smoked Bear article

Would you please restore the Smoked Bear article? It should not be considered for G11 as there are no products being sold. The organization that created Smoked Bear is trying to save millions of animal every year from wild fires. Thank you in advance. TnCom (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Promotion" isn't restricted to commercial ventures selling products. Please take a look at WP:NOBLECAUSE, WP:SPAM, WP:ORG and WP:BFAQ. – ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


I'm in agreement with you. The page needs work - a lot of work. Neglected for a long time. I'll do what I can. Do you have a suggestion for an Infobox template? Maile66 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello there

There was an edit conflict on the page (and I see you indef blocked the user), but here is what I was about to post :

  • Hi there; COI or not, I believe the username might lead some unfamiliar users to believe he/she represents Wikipedia. But yes obviously COI would also be a concern. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • They've openly admitted at the Help desk that they work for CB. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I understand but this is not what I meant. It's like someone who would choose the username Administrator or Editor in chief or whatever misleading name; when they edit it could give the impression to someone unfamiliar checking the history that the wikipedia "editorial team" (doesn't exist but how do I know that if I'm not familiar with WP) was involved in the writing of the article. And they most likely won't check the help desk. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 17:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


Why did you delete the page for "i5 (girl group)"? They were a real girl group with an album and singles. One of there songs was even been covered many times, so they do have some relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankley community high school still listed on New Pages

The article Frankley community high school which you deleted is marked as unpatrolled on the new pages list. ialsoagree (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edits for AED?

The Academy for Educational Development has re-branded itself as AED (no longer just an acronym). Also, Stephen Moseley is no longer the CEO if you check the link provided. I also corrected a broken link for the Center for International Exchanges, which you re-broke. I basically cleaned up the page a little without changing anything, so I do not understand why you undid everything.

Gaul29 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Because your edits show a clear pattern of trying to make the subject look better, to an extent that led me to conclude that you work for them in some capacity. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a low-level recent hire doing this on my own, but why does that mean that I cannot correct outdated information? I just want the page to be accurate. Can I ask you to review it instead? Can you at least update the CEO, Board of Directors (I removed someone who is no longer on the Board) and the broken link? At least the broken link, right? The page is inaccurate pure and simple, and I don't know what I changed that is so controversial. If I do not do it, who will?

Gaul29 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Just stop adding all the pious blather about "mission" and the like; and don't change an article title to euphemize what it says. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "Board of Directors" where the title of the page is actually "Board of Directors"? Maybe you thought I renamed the link about Stephen Moseley? Well I used a new link since that article is old and makes no mention of the current CEO.

I also thought the description of the organization did not cover all of the programs that it is involved in. I apologize for the word mission or whatever I wrote. I just thought "focused" was not an apt word. I appreciate your vigilance, but I think you are being overly sensitive in this case and judging by your language, have an axe to grind. I didn't mean to use "pious blather", I just didn't like the language in place.

Gaul29 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike has no axe to grind. He is just being vigilant, as all Wikipedia editors should be, about articles being used as a vehicle for promtion/backdoor advertising. This is an encyclopedia, it does not have to cover article subjects in miniscule detail. Please take a look at WP:COI and WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just changed the broken link. I refrained from re-changing the 250 programs to 300, which is the correct number. And I did not change anything with minuscule detail... Also, he was being overly-sensitive, because he deleted all changes without exploring the reasons behind those changes. He made an assumption. This article was almost three years outdated if you look at the sources!

And for the record, the rebranding was done 1/2 a year ago and has nothing to do with the scandal, which is why there is no news source to back up that statement. The name was changed, because as you can see from the article, the organization now does much more than educational development (which was its prerogative at its founding). I can understand how my actions were misleading, but why is an EDITOR posting an unsubstantiated statement?

Gaul29 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope that somebody will be able to find more information backing up the note. If not, I fully expect it will be deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
For future reference, because of your COI you should use the article's talk page to suggest changes for review by other editors. – ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, this has definitely been a learning experience. This was my first time editing a wiki page, and I didn't mean to skew anything. I fully appreciate your vigilance, and for keeping wikipedia neutral.

Gaul29 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

An acquaintance of mine sells buttons at science fiction conventions that say,
"Oh, no!
Not another...
learning experience!"
--Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

James Sensenbrenner on Hotaru Ferschke

It isn't noteworthy that Sensenbrenner first tried to stop legislation that had unanimous support of both houses of Congress and then the legislation was passed over his attempt to stop it? I think that is newsworthy on two counts and it is well referenced.William 21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope; not at all. It was a procedural quibble on the part of a committee leader; happens all the time. I despise the man; but this is the most trivial of trivia. It only made news in my native Tennessee because of the sob story involved. He's going to devastate American funding for science and research during his term as chair of the Science Committee; that will be noteworthy. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It has been reported by Associated Press and the Washington Post. Those aren't Tennessee media.William 22:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Southeastern Regional Lipid Conference

Dear Orangemike,

you deleted the article: "The Southeastern Regional Lipid Conference (SERLC)" I disagree with deletion and tagged it "hang on". However, you deleted it faster that I could respond. I disagree with the deletion.

SERLC is one of the oldest and influential lipid meetings in the country. Please edit the article and increase its notability since information on this meeting deserves to be accessible to the community of lipid researchers and the public. Because of this importance and the short time that the article is on the web objection is raised against its deletion.

Further evidence against is provided against "speedy deletion":

General evidence against lack of notability according to the wikipedia guideline for "lack of notability": "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

SERLC is a lipid conference that has covered lipid science since 1966. Numerous students and post-docs have benefited from this conference by fostering their careers. Because of this, SERLC is referenced by sources that are independent of the subject, namely educational websites of premier institutions in the United States (see external links). Considering that this conference provided student and post-doc education for the last 45 years, it is only timely and to devote coverage by a wikipedia entry to it.

Specific evidence against G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

SERLC is a premier scientific conference, non-profit and does not advertise. The format of the page is identical to the format of other conference pages on wikipedia, however, covers far more in depth information on the topics of the conference itself. This includes Broader impact sections on Public Health and student/post-doc education. The SERLC website is purely educational and is meant to serve as an interactive knowledge platform for students and post-docs.

Would you mind to specify the reasons for deletion.

Thank you. Ebieberich (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What was deleted was a lengthy reproduction of conference material, suitable for the sponsoring organization's website, but not for an encyclopedia article. It was so extensive and so promotional in nature as to constitute an advertisement for the conference. I suggest you read WP:NOBLECAUSE and WP:ITSUSEFUL. "Promotion" is by no means confined to commercial products and events. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Is it possible to shorten it by deleting unnecessary parts and only keep the first introduction part? For example, the Gordon Research Conferences have a wikipedia entry and I could revise the article on SERLC in a very similar way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Also, please let me know how to keep the title if a shorter version is acceptable. Thank you. Ebieberich (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The title is fine. However, given your obvious conflict of interest, Erhard, I'd suggest that you are probably not the person to be writing the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is no problem. To avoid that there are two pages with the same title, one deleted and one hopefully not, will the deleted one be removed or does it stay in the net. Or in other words, how to remove a page that has no content besides the message that it was deleted? Thank you. Ebieberich (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to change the fact that the other one existed. Don't sweat that. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
In case Ebieberich tries to re-instate them, please indicate whether you agree this edit and this edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Orange Mike. I do not quite understand what is meant by the above editing section. Anyway, it looks as if I have a misunderstanding of what is worthy to be posted on Wikipedia, in particular with respect to notability. I understand that the article should be shortened and descriptive parts removed. Someone else will then revise and post it since you indicated a COI. I don't know whether Article Wizard or AFC is the best way, but I need to get some confidence that it is fairly treated and not just immediately bumped out again. The previous article has been edited by experts in this research field before it got deleted. They welcome wikipedia as a valuable interactive tool, but they do not want to spend time on editing articles that get immediately deleted. As a suggestion I could imagine to just give an editor some time to revise it. Thank you for your advice. Ebieberich (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RHaworth was pointing out what he/she felt were rather spammy insertions of your conference into the relevant articles; I myself feel that the relevance of the conferences made the insertions appropriate, but that you for COI reasons should have suggested their inclusion on the talk page of those articles, rather than doing it yourself. As to where to go from here: I'd suggest going the AFC route, suggesting that the deleted article be used as a starting point for a new article to be worked on in somebody's sandbox. In making the AFC request, obviously, you'll need to disclose your own COI and make your case there (as you did here) for the use of the previously-deleted version as a starting place. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear OrangeMike. Thank you for your help. I tested the AFC submission page clicking on "preview" and got the message "backlog" and article "under review". I think that RHaworth edited the article before. Does this mean I should sit still and wait what happens? Also, if I should submit via AFC: Where do I declare and explain my conflict of interest? Ebieberich (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Holofcener

Do you mind reviewing this article? What is wrong with it? Kittybrewster 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's got external links imbedded in the text
The "external links" section has malformed links without proper formatting (see WP:CITE for details)
It reeks of namedropping, listing the names of people he's sculpted as if their notability would rub off on him (see WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS)
It's not properly formatted for a biography. Look at the bio for Frank Zeidler or Frank Zappa; see the chronological structure, from background to education to achievements to personal life, each following the other in roughly historical order (except that we tend to tuck personal life at the end of the article)? Instead, this hops around his chronology, and never does get around to discussing his background or his personal life properly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
How do I put it? Ethan Allen Russell badly needs inline references. Kittybrewster 18:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a template for that: {{nofootnotes}}. Put it up at the top with other editing tags such as those for improved sourcing, wikification, etc. A catalog is at WP:TEMPLATE. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you blocked one of my IP's

Currently I'm using a library one. I think you were targetting this guy User talk:Mudraker and I got caught in the crossfire. I'll be reading the "why-were-you-blocked" stuff tonight. The IP is an employment centre with lots of computers and some Wikipedia edits there. I suppose you might as well respond here for coherency. I'm not taking it personally. See ya later.   ;-)  Civic Cat (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, he's never been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oops. My error. It's User:Theblazers. Forgive my error, I was going on my memory last night. I have the printout with me now with the name (and at present I'm using this library computer whose IP isn't blocked). Later today, I'll be using the computer with the IP he's using. If you could unblock it by then, I'd mightily appreciate it. Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


Why did you delete the page that I spent an hour putting together, attributing everything so that the significance was obvious. has done more for NJ's music community than all NJ radio stations combined, and many of them are considered significant.

Please re-instate the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guysmiley13 (talkcontribs) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Guysmiley13 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There was nothing in that article that asserted actual notability. "Famous among all the people who've heard of it" "plays all the bands you never heard of" etc. is not sufficient. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Not saying there is any potential of inclusion, but maybe Orange Mike or someone else could userfy the article in your userspace so you can work on it and make it acceptable for Wikipedia. That way you don't loose all your work. [CharlieEchoTango] 06:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike - Millions of people have heard the station & visit the site (I can site an article that discusses that), and " plays all the bands you've never heard of"??? First of all that is incorrect because the page cited a dozen bands that have become nationally known acts that started off being played on the station. And that's the point, how does one ever hear of a band, if a station like doesn't give them a chance to be heard. And being the first and only of something should be enough notability. Edison was the first to invent a lightbulb. notable. is the first station to play only NJ bands. notable.

Please reconsider your decision, as it seems to be ill conceived and elitist.

At the very least, let me know what you feel needs to be added to make it notable and let me work on it in userspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guysmiley13 (talkcontribs) 13:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Guysmiley13 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The guidelines for notability of a website are at WP:WEB. "Nominated for the Hoboken Music Awards every year since 2009" is not exactly what we're looking for in an encyclopedia aimed at a global audience. Remember, Wikipedia does not exist in order for you to promote your noble cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible trade mark vio

Can you please block User:AMD64 as a possible user name vio. S/he dabbled with AMD related articles as well... If it is not a vio pls explain me why. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Another admin has already dealt with this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Richard A. Karp

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Richard A. Karp. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Haven Empire "hoax"

Yes, I did use Google Earth to make maps, but the Haven Empire is NOT a hoax. Think of it as a very large, unusually organized gang with massive territorial claims. There are two fictional works in the process of being published based on it. If you don't believe me, then hunt down my cousin, who'd be more than glad to prove you otherwise. Ultima3000 09:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultima3000 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider or social networking site. If you want to play these pretend games with your cousin, go ahead; just don't do it here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard A. Karp

You speedily deleted Richard A. Karp less than 24 hours after its creation, citing WP:CSD A7. Did you not read the article, and notice that this guy was one of the original implementors of TCP and a colleague of Vint Cerf's? More importantly, he's a computer scientist with a name eerily similar to Richard M. Karp's, so it's important to have the page for disambiguation purposes; otherwise, people will end up assuming that Richard M. Karp worked on TCP. I'll reinstate the page. You're welcome to open an WP:AFD about it, if you believe Richard A. Karp still isn't notable enough. --Quuxplusone (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I can't undo the deletion! So, please undo it yourself. As I said, you're welcome to nominate the article for deletion through the usual channels. --Quuxplusone (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike, are you reading this comment right now? If so, please reply to it. --Quuxplusone (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A speedy from a week or so ago

A few days ago, I posted a COI report regarding F. Richard Hauck, and you deleted the entire article as non-notable, but if I remember correctly, I thought it was, at the very least, not an unambiguously non-notable subject (he seems somewhat well known within the (admittedly WP:FRINGE-Y) field of Mormon archaeology, and the account with the same name was not the original creator of the article. Perhaps would AfD be better? Thanks, Kansan (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you go back before he started turning it into an autobiography, the article says:
he exists;
he's an archeologist;
he founded a non-notable organization;
he's written about the BoM;
he's worked with another non-notable LDS-related forum; and
he's an LDS himself.
There's nothing in there I see as rising to the level of an assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Kansan (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted my talk page

oi bloke, can you please inform me to what reason my user page was deleted, I am pretty sure that not all of it, if any significant portion at all was against Wiki-rules, I would appreciate you telling me what was previously written on the page so that I can put it back to how it was (minus any material that shouldn't have been there)., I appreciate you doing this,.ICIWORLD (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with the user above, the last version of the page before it was deleted doesn't seem to have G11 content. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It was basically a spamlink to and the username was ICIWORLD (I see the user has since been unblocked so they can change their name). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


This template looks like it's not being used. Do you know anything about that? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated the template for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#Template:Symbolism. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


I've been trying to clear out older cases from Category:Unblock on hold. This one has been holding for over a month. Discussion seems to have stalled some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of User Space.

Hi Orangemike,

As I am fairly new still to Wikipedia, I wasn't totally aware that I couldn't use my personal space as a 'code' holding ground for the company I work for. From after reading the correct criteria for personal pages, would it be fine for me to recreate this and just add sections of my company page which I am currently editing?

Thank you for your time.

Shaheedi Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheedi Singh (talkcontribs) 15:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be working on an article about your company anywhere; information on what you should be doing instead was on your talk page until you removed it. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. Am I permitted to recreate my own user page again, but just leave it empty this time round then? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheedi Singh (talkcontribs) 15:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to create a userpage. It should contain content that helps us understand who Shaheedi Singh is and what he brings to this project in the way of experience, opinions, preferences, etc. See WP:USERPAGE#What may I have in my userpages? for further guidance. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

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 User:Bondiveres/User: Thank you. KrakatoaKatie 08:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia isn't for promotion, I get that. But if a post (after some editing) meets Wiki specifications and is deemed notable then that is ok, yes? I'm new to this and am working hard to learn the ropes. Thank you for your patience.

-Ballark Ballark (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have some kind of connection with the Yoxi people, so our rules on conflicts of interest apply as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cynthia MacLeod deleted minutes after creation...

That was harsh. A7, you say; did you even look? At least two pages link to this Charlottetown, PEI fiddler. Discography going back eight years might offer a clue to her notability. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No credible assertion of notability; best I could decipher from her own website, she has not had any actual albums released by actual record labels. If you'd like, I'd be delighted to userfy it for you so that you can gather some actual references. (Nothing against fiddlers, or PEI folks.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
"Record labels" ?? That's kind of a mid-20th century notion, don't you think? Sure, userfy away, and I'll dig up more ink on her. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Native Speaker

I'm a native speaker Mike. I see that there were a number of typos in my post. I typed it quickly as I have been getting a number of edit conflicts on help pages. I think your comment undermines my good faith attempt to help. Even if I wasn't a native speaker I don't think it would prevent me from assisting a confused new editor. --Leivick (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gackkkk! I didn't mean you, Daniel!!!! I was talking about the autobiographer! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Ohhhh. I see now. I didn't get the sense that barnaby was a non native speaker, just someone adverse to using capital letters, but I think you might be right. --Leivick (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Since he claims to be a writer, I did him the courtesy of assuming that he was a native speaker of some other language, perhaps French? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

American Heritage University of Southern California

Good find.

The system for approval of education institutions in California is a mess, with the result that there are a lot of institutions like this one in the state. (Notwithstanding the fact that they appear to be more interested in enrolling students in places like Pakistan, Africa, and southeast Asia than in California.)

It's on my watchlist now, anyway... --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Username violation problem

A few days ago, you blocked user QFIT for a WP:U violation. That you for the assistance. However, that user continues to make deletions using IPs at Hole carding, and will not join in discussion. Any help would be appreciated.Objective3000 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article about Georgia based punk band Veara

Hi! I'm requesting that the protection preventing the creation of an article about Veara be lifted. As I skimmed the deletion log, I saw that you were one of the users to delete the article, so I'm hoping you can help me out. Since the deletion, I believe that the band has made significant progress, releasing a full length album on major independent record label Epitaph Records[1], produced by Rob Freeman. Also, the band has acquired an opening slot on the Eastpak Antidote Tour in Europe alongside Sum 41[2].

I'm a new editor to Wikipedia, and I think that writing an article on Veara would be great for my first. I look forward to your response. Thanks!

--RevelsInChains (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Create a sandbox at User:RevelsInChains/Veara and work on it until it's ready for publication; then get back to me. And by the way: don't use HTML code; it leads to confusion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Stealth change to UN policy?

Hi Mike and season's greetings! It would seem that name+company user names are now permissible. Seems like a fairly fundamental change in policy that needs to be discussed further. Thoughts? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I received your link about conflict of interest with regards to my recently removed page for the company Barcade. I have read the section and while I do understand the potential for conflict of interest, I had taken great care in only presenting facts and backing them up with cited references with regards to the company when I created the page initially. Although I am an employee, I know that I was not the only person adding information and editing the page since then. So should the page really be removed because someone from within the company had first published it? Please advise how we can have the page returned to wikipedia. Barcade has been a vital part of NYC night life for the past 6 years, has been featured in national media too many times to cite and is now a regional chain of businesses with locations in 3 states. Should we really be removed because an employee created the initial page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnkermiz (talkcontribs) 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If other people think the topic is notable, then the article may be created; but as the links on your talk page explain, you should not be doing it. You are only making it worse when you keep saying "we" as if you were editing here as a representative of your employer. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then. Thank you for the feedback. I understand the potential for a conflict of interest and appreciate your attention and response. But again, I really took great care in respecting the site when the article was created, did not write it in the vein of a "press release" or publicity agent, and once I wrote it, other people began editing it and contributing. I will leave it alone. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnkermiz (talkcontribs) 19:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


Were you declining to restore this article or just giving your opinion on the notability of the subject? You need to be more clear about this so that if another admin restores it, (which should be automatic if deleted by PROD unless the article meets a speedy criteria) it won't be seen as overriding your judgment or "wheel warring". I addressed a similar issue here at WT:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)



I was asked to put a reference for my entry on Riva Kastoryano. When i am doing it I see now that it was delated. She was one of the leading sociologist expert on identity and immmigration. You can find information about her and her studies I did not undertand. I just came to wiki to contribute to the promotion of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daglarkizireyhan (talkcontribs) 16:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You simply posted a statement saying she exists and has studied some people; that is not a claim of notability. Please see WP:PROF for our standards of notability of professors. I'd suggest creating a referenced draft article in your userspace. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Username vio

I think this user is violating Username policies because of a. of possible WP:COI vio and is used for promotional purposes (editing a company article of the same name). For example, would Mike from Symantec be banned if he is editing the Norton Internet Security article? I think he should. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Which user? – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Mark at Alcoa this. OOps for not mentioning the name.

THese are the reason he (or she) should be blocked:

  • Editing article called Alcoa
  • Used for promotional purposes
  • SPamming Alcoa links (accoding to comments at his/her talk page(

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, but some of the admins who frequent WP:UAA (not Mike, he is a staunch enforcer of the user name policy) have taken it upon themselves to decide that it is not a breach because he has declared his COI. This is nonsense in my view because it means that the policy is being inconsistently applied. In any event, the discussion should continue at Wikipedia talk:Username policy, not here. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah but only he can do something about it... I previously approched him regarding User:AMD64 which other admins think its not a vio... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Maple Ridge chrysler

Dammit, I was just gonna tag that. Stop being so efficient! HalfShadow 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Record Label article

Hey Mike, you just deleted a page that I'd only just started writing with the note that there was no explanation of the subjects significance (real person, organisation).

a) We are the largest independent hip-hop label in Wales so we would hopefully qualify as 'significant'. b) I'd only just started the article so I'm not sure how you'd be qualified to make the judgement of significance. That said, I realise you probably wanted us to write it out in full before saving but I was just trying to ensure the process was working as it should be before continuing.

But you cut my feet cut off before I could even start walking. Thanks dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fryzilla (talkcontribs) 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"We"? Does the concept of conflict of interest ring a bell? In the future, write the article first, don't just lay a sketch down on the page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not uncommon to come across a COI entry (and we really need a COI speedy tag; db-spam doesn't always do the trick), so I'd say no... HalfShadow 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Maple Ridge Chrysler

OrangeMike - may I ask why you deleted my post about Maple Ridge Chrysler? I did not see any difference between that addition and say something like the page for Sandman Hotels, Inns and Suites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkenthull (talkcontribs) 05:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It was about a local car dealership, and was written in a very promotional manner. There was no hint of a sign that anybody anywhere had ever found the business notable in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Can you point me in the direction of a really good article where all citing is done correctly. Thanks Bashereyre (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start would be any of the Featured Articles and WP:CITE may be of assistance too. – ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam username blocks

Hey, Mike. I've softened your block of Lisdinfo (talk · contribs). I think a {{softerblock}} would have been better in this case than a {{spamusernameblock}}, since the only real problem was the username. They weren't adding anything promotional and they declared their COI quite openly. A spam blck seems a bit bitey for a few corrections to an article where they have a COI. Maybe it's worth being a little less liberal with the spam blocks and considering whether a softerblock is better? Just a thought. On a personal note, I replied to your email last night. All the best, my friend, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your editing style violates Wikipedia policy

I'd suggest you need to be aware of this: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Your editing style plainly violates this aspect of deletion policy. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps TWSN hasn't yet read Wikipedia:Essay. I tend to largely agree with this essay, but that doesn't much matter, it's not policy. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
TWSN is trying to promote his grandfather and his grandfather's out-of-print autobiography, to which he says he believes he owns the copyright (but he can't be bothered with our complex procedures). I admit to being somewhat impatient with articles full of fulsome prose without references. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure you didn't mean someone else? Or am I missing waterfowl? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
From his own talk page: "The writer was my grandfather, so prima facie the copyright is likely to be with me! I'm still looking for the page I had in mind. Just wait for it, please." --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, he had deleted that after adding it earlier in the day. Thx.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Up To Now

There were actual footnotes. An editor removed them, quite arbitrarily. I am building this page gradually so pouncing on it with instant criticisms is not constructive or helpful editing. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Those were not footnotes about the book, except for the WorldCat listing (which is trivial and does nothing to establish the notability of the work. Nobody is challenging your grandfather's notability; just the notability of the book, the tone of your writing about the book (to which you've claimed you may hold copyright), etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Up to Now

He's removed the tags. I've given him a 3RR warning and pointed out that 'under construction' is no justification for removing the tags and that the tags attract editors who like to add sources. But I'm pretty convinced that this should be a redirect as my searches suggest there isn't enough for a separate article. It isn't even discussed in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 12 hours. I see he's added some books he says are sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Howes (actor)

Dear Orangemike, sorry I thought I had followed the right procedure. My article User:Msrasnw/Thomas Howes (actor) is a new one with more refs .... could you have another look and let me know how to get this back to the main space. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)) I had written this to go on the new article's talk page but you got there first. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

This article is a new version of an article that was previously deleted due to lack of references. Following an examination of Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus and after discussions with two of the previous three deleters I have decided to try it again as it now seems sufficiently well referenced to clearly establish notability. The redlink on the downton abbey page looks odd to me. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)) Playing the Second Footman and the like does not constitute a claim of notability; and nothing you added to the prior version did anything to cure that problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me very odd - his role while may be one of the downstairs characters is not small - you are the second one to imply that the class of the person is important. Have you watched the series? To me my article seemed like it was massively different - more substantial than the one I could view on the cache. It was more than one line and had more references. I clearly think this could not be "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion." re G4 but anyway. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm the last guy to disdain a member of the working class as unimportant! However, the article as written still didn't seem to make a solid case for notability (the "look, another Yorkshireman on the telly" interview came closest). I'd suggest you keep working (on the draft in your userspace) on referencing this with links to article about Howes, not about productions in which he plays/played a part. Check back with me when you've got a couple more solid references to Howes himself. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You are not the only one to go down only the "second footman" role... But to my mind actors on major tv series in the UK worthy of coverage - even where there is relatively little evidence. Millions were watching his performance over several episodes and my guess is lots of people will have come here to find out something about him. I thought it odd there was a redlink on the downton abbey page when I was watching a rerun. I tried two of the three deleters without joy but the third has already made a fuss and was rude when I tried to rescue another article: Erich Albrecht. Excessive deletion in case like this seems to me to be wasting lots of work. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Dear OrangeMike, can I ask you to check that your G4 speedy deletion of this article was procedurally correct. It would seem to me my article was substantially different with more references and greater evidence of notability than the previous deleted one - even if in your opinion they were not enough. My reading of this Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus is that it possibly should not have been deleted speedily. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD. Is this the sort of thing one might take to deletion review? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Dear OrangeMike, I think I am going to ask for a "deletion review" of the Thomas Howes article as I do not think your use of G4 speedy was appropriate as I think my article was susbtantially different from the previously deleted one and had credible claims to having proved notability. I feel the new article might well have survived a new Afd. It might not of course - but the speedy deletion was not right. Anyway this is just to let you know. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

That's certainly your right; but I still feel that the new version was not substantially different from the old; just had more irrelevant footnotes to proved that an actor had (gasp!) worked somewhere! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear OrangeMike, this is just a little note letting yo know I have put in a request for a review of your speedy deletion of Thomas Howes (actor). Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_5 I think it is all clear and accurate. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

Paul J. Hoeper

Hey, I've been working on a series of articles on Assistant Secretaries of the Army, and I see that you've just deleted my article about Paul J. Hoeper, United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 1998-2001. Could you please restore it? Adam sk (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheerfully restored it and moved it to User:Adam sk/Paul J. Hoeper so you could provided some evidence that he's notable in some way. (I don't feel that ordinary bureaucrats like ASAs are notable; and the fact that so far most of your sourcing consisted of a press release would seem to bear me out. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, unsurprisingly, I disagree that ASAs are non-notable "ordinary bureaucrats". They're appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate. The office has its own flag. They have huge responsibilities - in the case of the United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, they oversee all acquisition and logistics spending done by the United States Army, with an annual budget over $15 billion. So, I'm of the opinion that all of the ASAs are notable. They're usually quoted fairly widely in the press during their time in office, but those quotes usually deal with the duties of their office at the time, and aren't a good source for biographical information, which is why I have to rely on the press release about the nomination. With respect to Paul J. Hoeper specifically, an archives search at the New York Times and the Washington Post both show he was quoted by those papers during his time in office and a Google search shows that the business press reports on what he's doing fairly often. In addition to the press release you refer to, Forbes magazine maintains a profile of Hoeper on Forbes' website. I think that's sufficient to establish notability. Even if there's some disagreement as to his notability, I think you'd have to admit that ASAs are at least a borderline case, and I hope you wouldn't object to my restoring the page. Adam sk (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't hear back from you, so I'm going to restore the page, and if you want to talk more about it, please let me know. Adam sk (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrative deletion before Wikipedia "article" is started

Why was the Wikipedia article that I had just started deleted within _seconds_ of my starting it?

I had just started on an article entitled "Antonia Maury" who I know a great deal about and have I have a lot of information to place there as well as sources and a few links. I saved the only the title to make sure that it would save as "Antonia Maury". Most all of her family is famous or at least have excelled in sciences of great importance. Carlotta Jaquina Maury (1874–1938) was an American paleontologist. Carlotta Jaquina Maury was born on January 6, 1874 at Hastings-on-Hudson, New York. She was one of Rev. Mytton Maury and Virginia (Draper) Maury’s three children. These people are of the ministry and or scientists of astronomy (see Antonia Maury) and the Draper side of Carlotta' family amily; father, son, grandson are famous in their own scientific fields and are Wikipedia articles. This one that I started and was immediately deleted, as stated by a note that I screen captured, is the only lady of the Draper family mentioned on Wikipedia that has not been in an article on Wikipedia -- and yet she excelled through schooling, sciences, and led an expedition to collect specimens of mollusks, and fauna. She has written many scientific articles that were published aand her works still exist today since there are thousands of illustrations of what she and others with her on that expedition -- all top scientists -- had collected. Much of that knowledge, descriptions, and illustrations are also on Wikipedia articles. Why destroy at the very beginning of a Wikipedia article? I really do not understand that but then I try to build and have been building Wikipedia and Wikisource for 7 years.William Maury Morris II (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's at Antonia Maury and according to the logs has not been deleted in the past. – ukexpat (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He is referring to Carlotta Maury which was A7ed as it consisted of nothing but "Carlotta Maury was a palaeontologist." I have to say this leads to a whole slew of articles of really marginal notability. It looks like the work of a family genealogist. --Leivick (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You are correct in that it was an article to be written on Carlotta Jaquina Maury also of the famous Draper family. These people were famous in their time but like many are lost to time. As for me being a family genealogist that I am but only in the context that it is no more than I am a family minister, astronomist, marine biologist, and many other studies and I do not think anyone has only one thing to study in life. I am not a professional genealogist if that is what yyou think. I write about what I know and seek out and then write more on it just as other wikipedians who *write articles* for Wikipedia. History, Literature, Sciences, Religions of the world -- I like them all just as I once was, among other similar vocations, an architect. Now, having stated that for clarification, I will also state that I have seen a topic, or category, about "women" who achieved high standards of education and contributed to the world. That article is on Wikipedia and lists Maria Mitchell amongst many other women. William Maury Morris II (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is what caused me to try start an article on Carlotta Jaquin Maury, aside from what I already know of her family while she is left unmentioned but excelled in a science that the workd uses beyond what I have already stated and that being about finding strata for the extraction of oil for large companies in her time, Both of those sisters names are listed in that article as seeking information about "female scientists" but only one of the two sisters, Antonia, has a Wikipedia article that answers to this call for Wikipedia articles on "female scientists". They are sisters--how would one go about eliminating the parents names (Draper, who were famous) and the sisters names aka "genealogy" aspects of each life?. But as stated above, "was A7ed as it consisted of nothing but "Carlotta Maury was a palaeontologist.", which is where I *began* and no "slew" of "genealogy" (which is history) was introduced at that point -- none. William Maury Morris II (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you re-create the article in user space at, say, User:William Maury Morris II/Carlotta Maury so that you can work on it at your own pace without risk of deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two totally different issues here. One is the idea that an article must have substance; i.e., one should create the article first, not create a placeholder with no substantial content, then expect editors doing new page patrol to ignore the empty placeholder. That is what sandboxes are for, and why one can create a near-infinite number of them to work at one's leisure. In brief: write the article first! The other is the concern on the part of other editors that you, William, are creating vanity articles on family members of marginal notability to feed the egos of yourself and your relatives on the Maury side. I'm willing to assume good faith; but you can understand why people get suspicious. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good advice all and I would only write that statement if I believed it to be a fact. It is perhaps true that I should have written an entire article first but I have started articles AND perhaps *formatted* it elsewhere. I have started articles, or joined in, and others will see my statements and alter it and perhaps make it better. But, sir, I had just started the article and had a lot more text to add. I had not written as many as what- see above -- about 10 words or less and while still online writing I was *immediately* and rudely deleted by a bot -- or an editor?

That article, I swear before God Almighty, never had a chance to have more text added to it. I have never had to write an entire article elsewhere and hope that it gets moved to the correct place but I have, since my *immediate deletion*, read elsewhere as well as here in messages above where a fellow did exactly that -- had to write elsewhere and hope that article he cared about as an editor would be moved. I looked and it was not moved but rather was left where it was.

Look at most any article at its beginning and you will see others adding to and changing information. I am aware of the "vanity" situation but I honestly do not write any vanity for myself -- it is that I know the family names and how they are related to each other as well as some of the family history. I try to include, with a link, or links, other wikipedia pages with that family information already on wikipedia about whatever I may write. The vanity situation is something I am long familiar with and people _will assume things about me_ erroneously. I have written from many ISPs with several pseudonyms due to that problem of people seeing my own name. One day I became relaxed with other editors on wikipedia and started, for the first time in years, using my real name -- I also should not be ashamed of it -- although that is what it comes to when it is seen and especially when connected to other old family members. Long ago I *never* would use my real name but I became convinced not to try to hide my own name. So, I am now in the present situation and I have been writing on wikipedia in my same old manner for many years now and others did add more information that I knew nothing about. I view writing wiki articles as a process for anyone to join in at any point. Others appear to vier writing articles by any one person and flow the text in after the article's name is created. I believe that both of these methods work -- give a bit of time to place some text in but a deletion with only a few words tested? That is not righteous. It is wrong. I dio not know what you and other more professional workers for wikipedia have to do nor how you do it but I know an article should have a start and I do not believe it should be written entirely elsewhere by any one person because that is where biases and misconceptions, &c., can come into yet another problem. That lady, Carlotta Jaquina Maury, was unknown to me a week ago. I saw here family names that I am familiar with and saw her name but I did not know of her then. I only knew she was related of two or three famous people. I knew that only because I was reading about her older sister, Antonia Maury, where I saw a brother and a sister mentioned. Only out of curiosity did I seek out information about that attempted recent article on "Carlotta [Jaquina] Maury" and then I found out that she, while an unknown, was once well known in scientific circles -- but she was forgotten for all of here intricate work and partly because she was a "woman" and in her day, her work was not accepted for women except by open minded individuals. You know in history that women have been held back. That was and remains a "wrong" to people. I saw here name with her sister's name on the above mentioned website about "female scientists". Racism, Sexism, and other such wrongs is something that I am against. IN Carlotta's own time she signed most of her work as C. J. Maury to hide her gender -- others sometimes wrote her full name or she would probably be totally unknown forever. *Finally*, Carlotta's name being "Maury" and her parents being the same as Antonia "Maury"; and my middle name showing as "Maury" -- I was highly reluctant to start that article. There is no such "vanity" in me and I actually was very concerned about --- such inacurate things about me. Nobody should have to feel their name should be hidden whether the ancestry was good or bad or famous or infamous. Please accept my apology for whatever problems I may have cause to you and/or others with an attempt at that article but still, I do think somebody should include that woman who contributed a wealth of knowledge that was sent to the Smithsonian as artifacts, fossils of fauna and mollusks and elsewhere by print "by C J Maury". The Smithsonian would not think such a person as being unworthy in a wikipedia article nor of the work that she excelled in. And she is not my relative that I am aware of. Respectfully, William Maury Morris II (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also restored and userfied it to User:William Maury Morris II/Carlotta Maury. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Autoblocked forever

Samah10 (talk · contribs), a user which you blocked, has been autoblocked for more than a month, and still is. I've never seen something like that before – most autoblocks expire just a few days after the block itself. HeyMid (contribs) 18:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an indefinite block (editor was changing other editors' usernames to synonyms for penis, that kind of thing). Textbook disruptive editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup. I'm not objecting your block, but it's very unusual that autoblocks are in place for months. HeyMid (contribs) 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction

FYI - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction has posts that appear to have gone unaddressed for a while. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Federalists the Real Federalists

No, it is not revision at its siliest. I am reading an introduction to the Federalist Papers right now and even it admits that the term Federalism referred to a "leaguing together, as under treaties" and that the Articles of Confederation was a true federal form of government while the Constitution was more of a centralizing document (though my professor admits that the Constitution is a cross between a centralized and federal state). The introduction goes on to say, "Yet the advocates of a stronger national government at the joint (federal) level commandeered the term, leaving the defenders of the old system to become antifederalists." It then mentions how Elbridge Gerry of Massachusts who disliked being called an Anti-Federalist stated that the correct terms should be Ratifiers and Anti-Ratifiers, or has he preferred "Rats and Anti-Rats." I also just read Federalist No. 39 and James Madison amits that the new Constitution is "neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both." Therefore the Anti-Federalists defending the old system were really Federalists as they advocated a truely federal form of government while the Federalists advocated a government that was a mix of federal and nationalistic methods (this then caused the meaning of the word federalism to change over time). Emperor001 (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What article are you speaking of? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
On the talk page for the Anti-Federalists article. It's been a while since you called my statement "revision at its siliest" (last October). I was just so busy with school to care about it then (plus I made the comment in response to the class I was taking at the time). Emperor001 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to things in Wikipedia. For my recent edit to the Anti-Federalist articles could you tell me how and I'll cite the intro for my book and I'll even cite the quote for Madison's Federalist 39. Emperor001 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Template move

Can you explain to me why you moved {{Fringe}} just one week after the move discussion closed as "not moved"? Also you state "naming conventions" as you edit summary, can you provide a link to these naming conventions, as far as I know there are no specific naming conventions for templates, and the regular naming conventions are against disambiguation if unnecessary, going for the most basic name when available. Thanks. Xeworlebi (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realize there was a discussion; I've reversed myself (although the discussion leaves me totally confused by the reasoning of the "don't move" faction). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. How are you confused? Since there are no naming conventions for templates (at least that I know of) it's either do-what-you-want, as consensus on the talk-page goes, or follow article-naming-conventions, which state that disambiguation is not necessary unless some other subject wants that article title, which isn't the case here. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the importance of WP:FRINGE compared to a recent TV show, seems to me that the important topic trumps the trivial. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but since there is no template for WP:FRINGE there is nothing other than the Fringe template that wants the namespace Template:Fringe, making a dab unnecessary. For example while there might be something that want the namespace No Ordinary Family there is no need to disambiguate the current article to No Ordinary Family (TV series) until someone creates that other article, or plans to do so and wants that namespace, even if the other "No Ordinary Family" is much more popular, as long is no-one creates the article disambiguation is not needed. Perhaps more inline with this here, as long as there is no other episode list for House, there is no need to disambiguate List of House episodes to for example List of House (2004 TV series) episodes, although House (TV series) is disambiguated because House is already taken. If and when WP:FRINGE creates a template and wants Template:Fringe I'll support the move, but preemptive disambiguation is simply done for articles, and I don't see a reason why we should for templates. Disambiguation is only applied when it is required, not preemptively. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Q for U

Hi Mike - just wondering why this second block notice was necessary. There are over 500 other accounts with that prefix that aren't username blocked. While I don't endorse the way of thinking that the name might imply it seemed easier to block based on the promotional aspects, especially since that is the URL of a website. Let me know if I missed something. Thanks  7  01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The combination of the username and the only edit (creation of an article about a group demanding an Aryan nation be established in the Pacific Northwest) made it clear that this user is advocating an "Aryan" world, not just careless in their choice of name. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

gay tag

The category was removed under the BLP policy. Do not replace it without a solid citation or you maybe blocked.--Scott Mac 01:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The "L" in BLP stands for "living". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, I missed that. Nevertheless, if it is as well known as you claim, a reliable source should be easy for you.--Scott Mac 01:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure; how many more do you want? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, if you read D.H. Mader's "Walter Breen aka J.Z. Eglinton (1928–1993)," in Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context, edited by Vern L. Bullough (New York: Harrington Park Press, 2002), you'll see that both tags should be restored, since Mader and Bullough both consider him a pre-Stonewall LGBT activist. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I was taking a look at Before Stonewall.... on Google books, but I don't it either calling him gay, or an LGBT activist for that matter, although that is the topic of the book. Could you elaborate? And perhaps this discussion should be on the talk page. Prodego talk 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Try page 313 (inter alia): "He also found the etiology for his sexuality in his past lives; if it was classically Greek, that was because he had once sat literally at Socrates' feet." --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

name of editor

regarding User:AndyHPFZ, the intials HPFZ appear to be an abbreviation of the website Harry Potter Fan Zone whose article he has worked on, its a fansite, not an official organization, so i'm unsure whether to report this username or not.Дунгане (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please see the talk page and your original postfor justification and my thoughts rather than a swift ban of my account and deletion of both my edits to the article and contribution to the talk page? Andy -- (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

another username

User:Skmsg appears to be an abbreiviation of "Singapore Kindness Movement, and sg appears to be the sg is the ISO 3166 country code for singapore. this user has edited the article Singapore kindness movement.Дунгане (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Singapore kindness movement

Referencing is in progress, editing is being done to add more citations for page. The page is meant to serve as a online resource for students doing projects on various public campaigns in Singapore. Not meant for advertising. Refer link to National courtesy campaign (Singapore). Please review deletion, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skmsg (talkcontribs) 02:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Skmsg (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Deletion of Hand Hug

Why was this deleted, i had fixed all the A7 errors that it was deleted for originally?

BobbyWillace (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi Mike, I haven't had a chance to look at this in detail yet, but I personally think blocking this account was a bit harsh. The spamusername template states "you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you" and socks are only prohibited if they are being used to be disruptive, which I don't think is the case here. Could you reconsider the block? SmartSE (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The second he created the new account, he went right back to the COI edits he'd been warned about. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This should have been posted at the bottom of the page

Mike good work on Bambu rolling papers I think your cleanup was well written and very well done. Nahome (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please unsalt Dan Hesse

Hi Orange: It appears that Dan Hesse has been salted because of copyright infringements over the years. He was CEO of several companies including most recently Sprint. I have an article sitting in my sandbox and didn't know it was salted until I attempted to put it up (and was unaware until then of the drama). Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Bambu Current edit

Can we please post a reference as to how the Bambu brand traces its origins back to Bamboo the tree? As I have said before, there is nowhere I can see any indication of this.. If this is the case, any reference to "Bamboo" being in Spain should be removed from the page. As said by user on the article's talk page, also need more clarification on worlds oldest companies. If a company is as old as its oldest business entity, then how is Bambu not on the page? Because that seems to be the criteria for the other business on oldest companies page.. As user namome states on Bambu Talk, "It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu)." In the older rolling papers (pre the current owner 1980's) there is an establishment dat of 1764, therefore it is not "the current owner" who claims this date... And as Nahome states, on the other paper packs in "her collection" they use the same date of 1764... Can this please be adresss.. Otherwise, a much improved article with sections. And thanks for your time.--ArnaudMS (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This has all been discussed on Talk:Bambu rolling papers, let's keep your conversation about Bambu's date of formation and how I'm a bad bad person in one place, Please talk here: Talk:Bambu rolling papers, See you there and thanks! Nahome (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi! Someone proposed a draft of Dan Hesse at User_talk:WhisperToMe#Request_to_unsalt_Dan_Hesse - The draft is at User:Americasroof/Sandbox - the creator says there should be no copyright issues with his draft.

Should I un-salt it?

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Great law of peace

Regards this edit, the reason I removed the link is because that particular page was a redirect to the Great Law of Peace, which shows up earlier in the sentence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But the typical reader wouldn't know that. Maybe do a pipe that encompasses both terms? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I read the sentence as quite clear and self-contained and frankly can't think of another way to include it; if you piped [[Great Law of Peace|Gayanashagowa]] you'd have to spell out that Gayanashagowa means Great Law of Peace anyway. My main objective was to remove a redirect, so long as there's only one link for one or the other I have no real preference either way. If you think the page is better served by a piped link I have no objection beyond WP:EGG but obviously that's not very strong justification for anything. I don't really see the section on piping as really applying either - Gayanashagowa and "Great Law of Peace" are just translations of each other, there should never be one article for each.
To sum up, I think the current version is optimal but don't feel very strongly either way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

unblock on hold at User talk:GOHoshkosh

I think we may have got through to this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cashel Dennehy School of Irish Dance

Hi Mike,

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

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

This is a BLP which is pathetically lacking in references (and tweets are not reliable sources). I did fix a couple of references, providing the vital things you omitted, like authors and dates of publication. I probably won't contribute a lot, because I find people like this Braun rather obnoxious and frankly hate to waste my time on them. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Ya I was not the one who put that Twitter cite up there. Because I knew it would get taken down. But heres the glitch I have with that. I have been told by multiple persons that Twitter is a reliable source, and an equal amount that it isn't. Personally, I believe that it is. Scooter's Twitter account is what is called "Verified" by Twitter itself. Verification is a guarantee made by Twitter that the person tweeting is actually the person they say they are. In other words, it's a guarantee made by Twitter, Inc that they are not an imposter. Getting verified is not an easy process by any means. So my question is, how does that make it un-reliable? Bped1985 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Self-published source; the subject of an article is notoriously not a reliable source on themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That settles that then... Thanks for cluing me in! Cheers Bped1985 (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Sockppupet

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

Independent Green Party of Virginia

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

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

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

Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2011


Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
- Kingpin13 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


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

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

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

User talk:Lawline Louis J. Posner

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

Sam Darcy

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

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

Golden Monkey

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

If the Golden Monkey (stamp) is notable, it should be the subject of its own article. Instead, it was awkwardly shoehorned into an article on Asian philately, taking up way too large a percentage of the latter article. Simply create a whole new article on the Golden Monkey, just as you would on say the British Guiana 1c magenta. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is needed, but really there isn't much to say about the stamp. The story is the starring role it is playing in the stamp trade in China which is the subject of the article. Perhaps that is the misunderstanding, the article is about the stamp market, not about stamps. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The story is about the market for this particular stamp. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The thing is, the picture chosen in one article about a Hong Kong auction was of the auctioneer in front of a full sheet of this stamp. That's why it belongs in the article, although I can't justify a fair use image of a sheet or of that image of the auctioneer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Eureka (CDP), Wisconsin

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

UW-Milwaukee alumni Wisconsin legislators

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

Ted Hsu

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

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

The Rainbow Cadenza

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

Steve Green (journalist)

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

Nicolo Fonte

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

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

Regarding an answer you gave at the new contributors help page

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

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

SchnappeCo (talk · contribs)

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

Joel Rosenberg


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

Do you know how Mr Rosenberg's health is?

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

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

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


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


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

Actually, it's not a matter of "agreeing with" an article. The article lacked any assertion of notability, so as an admin I deleted it under the appropriate category: A7: article about subject in notable category without assertion or evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Strauss has number of notable credits to his name. He co-wrote a little film called There's Something About Mary and the latter two Santa Clause films and The Lizzie McGuire Movie, all box-office hits. I will add more references to it, the first draft was just a stub. Could you un-delete please. QuasyBoy 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Userfied to User:QuasyBoy/John J. Strauss so that you can get it ready for articlespace. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you will more references to it. :) QuasyBoy 22:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it good enough to go live again: User:QuasyBoy/John J. Strauss. QuasyBoy 22:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Why have you not responded? Jimthing (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Because I have a life? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Milikin archive

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

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

Please Assume good faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restore the links, and get some perspective.

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

Care to take a look at Sheridan College

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institute for New Economic Thinking

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

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


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

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

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

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

--Morgan 2.0

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

Dadichiluka Veera Gouri Sankara Rao

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

Singapore International Energy Week

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

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

Fabio Fulco

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

See WP:ENTERTAINER. Many solid journeyman performers never achieve notability; and since you apparently couldn't find any articles about him anywhere, this seemed to be one such. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
so you really mean the imbd is not enough to start a stub ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnee (talkcontribs) 20:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC) }}Barnee (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Certainly not! Heck, even my 15-year-old daughter has an IMDb listing (as do I), and we're not notable at all! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
hmmm then I think quite many articles should be removed. Well would the addition of the article from a major national movie site do it:

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

Those are not articles; they are listings in a directory. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. IMDB by itself is not enough to demonstrate notability, see WP:IMDB. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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

That's the old WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS problem, to which I have no answer. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
That page is excellent; it is saldy often just that. Leaving "other scrap" aside, confronting the guidelines and the content and sources of the article I still fail to see a fundamental problem. Do you? in second analysis?Barnee (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
hmm, silence usually means that one maintains one's view... I see that you are to remain a convinced "deletionist". Barnee (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Silence can also mean that one has logged off and gone to get some sleep :) Acather96 (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

About the block of Rbernstein

I see you're the blocking administrator for Rbernstein (talk · contribs), who got a hard block for a spam username. He's been discussing the matter on his talk page, and in one of his most recent comments, he suggested registering a new account so he could contribute—but suggesting edits on talk pages when there's a conflict of interest rather than making the edits on the articles.

My thought is that, rather than blanking the slate with a new account, the current account should be unblocked and allowed to change username, and I'm willing to do the unblock (and keep his talk page watched to monitor him). Do you agree with an unblock, do you think a new account is the better approach, or do you think he should remain blocked? I'm willing to unblock, barring objections—and since it's your block, I feel I need to contact you so you can weigh in on the matter. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't object. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

one sentenced biographical articles

Are these guys notable enough for articles on wiki? They only contain one sentence saying they were catholic writers and absolutely nothing else- Matthias von Schoenberg, John Ming, Aloysius Schlör, James Alphonsus McMaster, Ottorino Gentiloni.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they also include links indicative of a possibility of genuine notability in each case. This is a situation where I would not be in favor of speedy deletion, but perhaps would suggest the addition of {{notability}} and {{underconstruction}} tags. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Have I missed something in his edits that indicated he is a group account? Its a role account set up by a professor at a school in Singapore, and afaik he is the only one who uses it. He asks his students to make accounts and learn about editing wikipedia, and that kind of activity is certainly allowable from the other accounts of that type that I've seen. If I recall correctly, I even vetted him with a checkuser (likely Hersfold, jpgordon, or Tnxman...but I don't have the details at the moment) before granting him an IPBE. Syrthiss (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the userpage, this is not an individual account, but rather one belonging to the "SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project", merely managed by professor Lee. Thus, it qualifies as a role account, something we don't permit. If professor Lee had set up his own account (under a less iffy name), it wouldn't be a problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
We do most certainly allow alternate accounts, especially for situations like this. I expect this is a question of terminology, where 'managed' should have been more clearly defined as 'alternate account of Professor Lee for the purposes of this educational activity'. Syrthiss (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be a whole 'nother matter entirely. The page stated that it belonged to the project, not to the professor. I realize that it's night-time in Singapore, but I look forward to hearing Lee's perspective. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You might also clarify on his talk page how he is to share his perspective, since you ask him to reply at your talk page...but as he is blocked he cannot, at least as Smuconlaw. You didn't even mention how to place an unblock request to have another admin review it, tho at the very least I know Professor Lee knows how to do that from my previous interactions with him when he kept being hit by autoblocks. Syrthiss (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! :) Syrthiss (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Having previously reviewed at DYK some of the user's contributions, can I just add my vehement disbelief at and opposition to your block without prior discussion. The user was posing no policy issues and was a useful contributor of many high-quality Singapore articles and at the very least discussion should have taken place, either on his talk page or at ANI, before blocking. I'll be bringing this to ANI. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have drawn the attention of the volunteers at Wikipedia:Ambassadors to the ANI thread. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your decision to unblock the user. At least you're not as stubborn as some other admins who'd never admit they were wrong to block people even in the face of overwhelming consensus. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 16:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering! :) Syrthiss (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto that. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • See this thread on Smuconlaw's talk and this previous discussion at ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a procedural comment. Your last response to Smuconlaw ended up within the hatted section. I'd rather not adjust the collapsed area as it might be seen as trying to restart an argument. However if you want it to be seen by Smuconlaw it perhaps should be momved outside, or coppied to his talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Lurker; copied it to his talk page. He's not unhappy with me himself, and I think the whole kerfluffle is over with. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

David Isaac Maldonado article

Dear Orangemike,

I understand completely what you are saying it's just I started this crusade because I saw someone had written an article about me already but it was deleted for being unimportant by lady shallot so I thought maybe they needed more info whoever wrote the article and I made it my mission to please my fan who ever it was. So what is my next step is there a way to contact the fan that wrote about me or can you contact this person and see if I can help somehow?

Sincerely, David Isaac Maldonado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidisaacmaldonado (talkcontribs) 05:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Put the information on your own website, if you have one. It has no place here until and unless you become notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Refusal to un-delete page for Joe Conway

Hello Orange Mike.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Waterford is a far larger town than Tramore, and thus its mayor is more notable.
2. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is not considered a useful one; it may be deemed more an argument for deletion of the other article, than an argument for inclusion of this one.
3. The councillors as a class, like (say) their counterparts among our Milwaukee County supervisors, are not inherently notable, although you can usually find driblets of coverage of them in the local press. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Also "driblets of coverage" is not, I would submit, a fair characterisation of the coverage of county and city councillors in the local media. On the contrary, these elected representatives vote on matters of great local significance, which are routinely reported in the local media. I would invite you to look at these search results in our local paper for Councillor Conway to verify this, and to search for any other councillors equally.

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

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

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

How tiresome. I have issues with this "deletionism" cf I would rather work in my field of interest than spend my life becoming a wikipedia litigator. Wikidgood (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Deletionism" questioned.

Mike take a look at this please. I think you are making individualist policy and creating a chilling and inhibitory effect on less experienced users and creating a centrifugal pressure to publish elsewhere, probably with copyrights. Is that really what you want to do?

FYI I have been a staunch Democrat, like you, but of late really bad policy decisions at the local level are making me re-examine that. This destructive use of admin privelege is I suppose more grist for that mill...

[User:Wikidgood|Wikidgood]] (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1. You seem to be having trouble reading texts. I wear orange on most days which are NOT St. Patrick's; and I do claim expertise as a historian.
2. Those who would bifurcate an article on a minor historian find themselves faced with the burden of proof.
3. I am trying to help you, but help you by helping you follow our procedures and precedents. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Why is Samah10 blocked so long. Uishaki (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Samah10? She or he moved another editor's user page and talk page from their rightful name to a petty vulgarism, then to an actual obscenity; when cautioned about it, Samah left a message saying something to the effect of "I did it for fun, and I'd do it again." I left a block notice on their talk page, and they later removed the block notice from the page rather than do anything to request an unblock. I have, incidentally, restored the block notice to the talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Guernsey Press and Star

Not sure why you removed the Features section from this article. The one bit of content in the section so far - the Stone de Croze comic strip - was highly notable when it was published, such that it is still talked about now, 30+ years on. For example, from [3]:

Remember Guppy and his Stone de Croze cartoons? Quite a few do, judging from the new cartoon in GAP. I think, without exaggeration, that Guppy is one of the most important cultural figures Guernsey has produced this century. Why? Because not only was he good and funny, but he also included a wide range of local phrases and ways of speaking; all mixed up with issues of the day like parking and island development.

Agreed that most of the references to it now are blogs or blog-like and of course the publisher of the paper also published the books because they hold the copyright.

But I'm not sure any of the preceding is relevant anyway; this is not a standalone article about the comic strip and there is no claim here of independent notability. You created the original stub article - presumably as you believe the paper to be notable, and in the expectation that content would be added. This was merely a first expansion of the article with mention of a feature which ran regularly within it for many years. I agree that this has resulted - for now - in some prominence for this one feature, but the article is not finished, and to encourage addition of more content I tagged it as requiring further expansion.

RichardOSmith (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In the current state of the article, it was undue emphasis; and since there was an overt link to a commercial website selling this product, I felt it also verged on an advertisement for the cartoon collections. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Well, the undue element is accepted but I don't have a resolution to that as I have nothing else I can add to "water it down" and the best I could do was the {{tl:Expand section}} template. The Amazon link was the best I could find to verify the content; everything else failed WP:RS. The books are long since out of print; those for sale on Amazon are second-hand copies. I could leave a note on the talk page for now, but to complete the removal could you also delete the Stone de Croze redirect I created? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer

Thanks for becoming involved in the Kramer article. I hadn't noticed Dante19's attempts to censor that information until after you and SarekOfVulcan became involved. I also examined Dante19's edits and agree with you that this is either the article's subject or a close friend/family member. Dante19 also created the article and likely feels ownership. So how do we proceed? I don't desire to keep reverting edits with this person but I'm not sure this editor is open to discussions on the subject. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If and only if edit warring continues on Dante's part, we can ask a non-involved admin to protect it. As it is, let's assume good faith for the moment. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Works for me.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Novel

Hi , I see you deleted this BLP as Wikipedia:CSD#A3 when it was a pretty long term established article that was only majority blanked today and when discussion and development was being assessed and attempted, would you please expand on the reasons for such a speedy deletion of the article, A3 doesn't seem to apply at all as a reason to speedy the article, if you don't mind, I would like to have it userfied with the history so that I and other interested contributors can attempt to make it a worthwhile article. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The article basically said, "He's a nutter who thinks somebody is covering up the existence of free lunches/perpetual motion/the magic salt mill." There were no substantial sources left. At this point, it seemed to me, we either A3 it or move it to a sandbox somewhere in hopes that somebody might be able to salvage it. I'll be delighted to userfy it to User:Off2riorob/Gordon Novel. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
With a little notice some of us who had procrastinating about improving it would have done so. Better late than never, anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

List of notable people University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Would you please look at the list of notable people for UW-Milwaukee. Some editor objected to the various members of the Wisconsin Legislature being put on-this editor took the names off I put them on this editor took them off. You may want to see if any names should be put back on-Thanks-RFD 17:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking into this-RFD (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ro Hancock-Child

Thanks for taking a look at the article and contacting the main editor. The main problem is that virtually none of the biographical stuff has been published anywhere, not even her own website (which has a rather revealing notice [4]), and is completely unverifiable. I've asked for advice here on the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. I'm not sure if anyone will notice though. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Can you take a look please ? There's a single user account beobjectiveplease making continual edits which arent balanced. Thanks Babasalichai (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


There are a lot red links for the chancellor list. Why don't you remove those? Admeinw (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable question. The general longstanding consensus is that the head of a major university is notable; thus, we need articles about these persons. There is no such consensus about business executives, especially the heads of minor firms such as Brunswick or the Journal Corporation. If you feel the executives are notable, then heaven knows I'm not averse to you creating articles on that basis!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Brunswick is a wordwide company with multi-billion sales. It is very very notable. The journal is also a very notable journal. Admeinw (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Brunswick is a $5 billion corporation; five billion bucks may seem big to you and me, but on a planetary scale, that's not that big or "very very notable". Journal Communications is also a notable corporation, albeit a small one. However: notability is not inherited, nor contagious; being an executive of a notable firm does not make one notable in one's own right. (And like I said, I'm not averse to being proved wrong, if you think you can create an article about any of these executives that will stick.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion on this. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


User:Cookiemonster1212 is a new account I reverted one lot of vandalism on cream article and noticed offensive content on his user page, are there any guidelines about what if anything can be done about this? RegardsTeapotgeorgeTalk 14:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


I appreciate the manner of handling the report regarding User:Diversity8. The well placed good faith approach was obviously a good resolution to an AIV report, and for all reasonable expectations, more effective than a block could have accomplished. My76Strat 17:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking users for username violations when they have already filed a rename request

Please try to remember to check a user's contributions prior to blocking them: we should not block users for username violations while they are waiting for bureaucrats to process their requested rename. (e.g.) –xenotalk 17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The user's prior contributions consisted primarily of spamming for somebody who worked for that outfit. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, if by 'spamming' you mean 'creating a userspace draft', then ok. But if you think someone should be blocked for promotional editing, then block them for promotional editing - if they are trying to change their username, blocking them and pointing to their username as justification is just unfair. –xenotalk 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right: I missed the lone post to "change username" in a vast sea of edits to the article about one of the co-founders of the company whose name this account bears. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Hey Orangemike, I listed them because the only edits they made are links to a website with the same name. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If User:GerdKerfelstein is inserting links to "Gerd Kerfelstein's SpamCuisineHaus and Bar & Grill", then there's an obvious conflict of interest, but Gerd is still not forbidden from using his own name as a username. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kittens Mittens

Hi here is an article you need to look at: Kittens Mittens. Thank uou-RFD (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As always many thanks-RFD (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nathaniel Tarn bio

Thank you for your note. I have worked with Tarn so there is a relationship here. However, I have also verified the links and taken other steps to check this material. In your opinion, is this sufficient to meet WP's standards?

-d- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trogon (talkcontribs) 13:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Wholesale replacement of existing content is never a good idea.
2. The draft seems to be ill-formatted (use of all-caps, etc.), and completely without footnotes. You seem to have confused references with external links. See WP:CITE.
3. This is a freestanding article, without wikilinks to even the most obvious of topics, such as institutions, places and publications.
4. The tone is too adulatory. "His poetry possesses a remarkable range of voice and reference, fusing archaic myth with contemporary concerns and moving from complex hieratic visions to the deeply personal." Fawning much? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:MTAartsfortransit

WP:ROPE and a good deal of benefit of the doubt. I quite deliberately included a warning of a possible reblock in my unblock notice, just in case I need to call it in. I apologise for not consulting you before acting: usually I do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No big; your judgement is usually sound, and you clearly didn't go about this naively. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)