User talk:Orangemike/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Block of Greenarama

Seems premature to block a new editor with no warnings because the first article was related to a business interest. He has made no mainspace edits other than a request for help in how to do a move. Maybe he would have done some productive edits about other things. I request that you lift the block and give him some rope. I had already posted the "Welcome" template designed for such a case of a first edit which appears to be an advert. Edison (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The name is that of a trade show he was pushing, and thus immediately blockable. If he wants to participate under his own name, he's got instructions on how to do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 11 February 2011 (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. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Section User:Menilek's credentials and behavior, to be precise. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kneeling chair discussion

Hi, Orange Mike ... thanks for replying on the kneeling chair page. You look quite busy, but I'd appreciate it if you would follow up on my comment. The content is completely wrong and there should absolutely be a separate Balans chair page that is linked to it, since more than 90% of the research on kneeling chairs use the Balans chair to evaluate the concept - and other kneeling chairs can be quite different in their angle-angle relationships as well as their history and perspective. Can you please advise me about whether there's a way to reinstate the page, which Wentomeadow has blocked?

Thanks again, Rani Lueder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawstubes

Hi. You blocked this guy at 22.26 and then warned him he could be blocked at 22.28. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bankhallbretherton

I think you may have made a mistake on this one. He's a young kid with an interest in old buildings like, umm, Bank Hall, Bretherton. Why the block? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

His edits to Bretherton have been over the line, constituting advertisement of Bank Hall. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that article's history, but the limited exchanges I had with him some time ago suggested he was an over-enthusiastic young kid, who needed to be kept under control like others of that age - but an indef block seems harsh, especially as he has been trying to change his user name, and has a pretty solid history of contributions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's an iffier history than that; but I've unblocked him explicitly in order to facilitate a change of username. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hail of Bullets

Why was Hail of Bullets deleted under A7? The band has released two albums via Metal Blade Records, an established heavy metal record label who've handled releases by the likes of Slayer, so their notability under the guidelines aren't in question. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All the "article" said was that they existed and had released two albums. Nothing was said about established labels. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Need Admin help with what appears to be copyright violations

Here's the first that comes to mind: Paul Gordon: The entire article has three references but not online citations- I just checked out the first one. It appears the article is plagiarized-- see: [1] Would you please take a look at it? Thanks. Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on it! Probably well-intentioned editors, but too many don't understand plagiarism Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch!

Special:Undelete/Martin_Coleman_(American_football) --B (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A long-running hoax (over four years). After it was deleted and recreated, you tagged it [2] as db-bio rather than just deleting it. I'm just in shock looking at the history that this thing lasted so long. --B (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

oops - re-prod situation OneTravel

It looks like you had previously proposed deletion for the article OneTravel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was removed because an editor claimed "onetravel is a notable online booking travel site. It also has links to relevant articles. Does not need to be deleted in my opinion" although the only reference to the company I found in reliable sources was a passing mention in a wire story that called it a "smaller" online booking site and only mentioned it as one of the sites that a major airline was no longer doing business with. Do I need to bring a formal AfD or just let let the re-prod run? Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Prodding is a one-time-only procedure; I've created an AfD instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to an e-mail: real life trumps Wikilife

I've been asked to offer some guidance in an ArbCom-related situation by a fellow editor. Unfortunately, I'm currently involved in a desperate struggle to save my job and those of about 170,000 other workers in Wisconsin; so matters like Wikipedia politics are not going to get much attention for a while. Sorry, friend; but this is a once-in-a-lifetime battle I cannot afford to lose. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck to you, Mike. TNXMan 14:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Erk, I know that feeling (UK local government officer.....). I wish you all the best my friend. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock notice

Hey Orangemike, a user you blocked for username violations under "Fahamu Refugee Program" has been renamed to "BarbHB" and unblocked. I've explained through his request email the issues with corporation/promotional accounts, so hopefully it sticks. (I also pointed out I wasn't sure the userspace draft he was editing was noteworthy enough for inclusion.) Just letting you know, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kramer article discussion

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppets_and_legal_threats_at_Edward_E._Kramer you might be interested in. Personally, I'm about tired of dealing with the back and forth on this article. It's really not worth all this effort.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I'm done with any further edit attempts on this article. I've reverted it to NYlegal1's previous version and if he wants to delete all this information that's an issue for others to deal with. I have no desire to keep going back and forth on this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

NYL has a lengthy criticism of you here and on his talk page, in case you missed it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Scott Walker

Do you have a source for the claim that Walker's plan would "remove all [collective bargaining] rights from some groups, such as University of Wisconsin academic staff and childcare providers"? I am not doubting it, I just haven't heard that and can't find it in any of the current references. Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Any of the detailed accounts in the press, such as this! "The bill repeals the authority of home health care workers under the Medicaid program to collectively bargain.... repeals the authority of family child care workers to collectively bargain with the State.... repeals collective bargaining for UWHC employees.... repeals the authority of UW faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain." --Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is added back with the citation. Sorry, got a little impatient. –CWenger (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Hu17dotnet

Hello,

I noticed you blocked this account, in line with Wiki policy I realise - any chance it could be unblocked? The name refers to a site http://www.HU17.net but it is a one man band outfit providing local news for Beverley, hence his posting on the talk page of said article. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable username, as I understand the rules; it advertises his website. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Even when it's a community website that he merely runs? Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a community website, then the username makes it a "role account"; not acceptable. Additionally, promotional editing is no more acceptable on behalf of a non-profit than on behalf of a for-profit; see WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That I understand but to block it with no right of reply seems a tad harsh? Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why we always leave them free to edit their talk page and leave instructions on said talk page on how to appeal a block. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Generationsuny

D00D, I consider myself a hard-liner against spammers and self-promoters, but that indefinite block seems harsh to the point where I may start giving up my hard-liner ways. I can't believe I'm writing this, but I think I'm admitting that maybe it would have been better to make an attempt to convert that editor from a self-promoter to a productive contributor. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The shamelessly promotional nature of the edits to Nancy Zimpher's article (and remember, I'm a UWM grad who knew her by name before she went elsewhere) are what pushed this one over the top. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Tinnenbaum

Hi-Please look at the article about Alfred Tinnenbaum. Why do I think this is a hoax done by some college student? Nothing came up on Alfred Tinnenbaum on Google. I had been working on the Iowa Territory article and I would had come across this. I hope you are doing well-RFD (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New to Wiki and needing help

Hi Orangemike (and friendly talk page stalkers). Thank you for picking up that I didn't sign my post on my talk page earlier. I am new to Wiki and am finding the system difficult to navigate. Is there anywhere that you can ask simple questions about how to do things on Wiki? I am wanting to make significant changes to the article I am looking at, but am not sure what is and is not allowed. I believe the article is poorly written and the subject matter is deserving of a far better article with much better referencing. There is a lot of unnecessary repetition and important information is omitted. To what extent may I change the structure of someone else's article for the purpose of clarity? Where do I go to find these things out? I am also wanting to create a page at a later date on Taonga Puoro which I have noted are not covered in an article and should be featured in any encyclopedia. I don't even know where to begin to do this. How do you get permission to start an article? Complete novice - help needed. (Ewooll (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

You are already an editor; you have just as much of a right to make (sound) edits to an existing article as anybody else, from me to Jimbo Wales. Nobody "owns" an article; we warn everybody, "if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here"! Edit, and be welcome! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IP sock evading your block

...at Teleperformance. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Gamebook

Hi, the reason I deleted the section is because there is no reason why those books stand out from many other similar works. I don't think the page should give so much weight to two series whose importance is not supported by third-party sources. There are plenty of erotica and adult gamebooks published. These two are not special in any obvious way. Care to discuss? Ladril (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The one is notable as a bestseller (can you name another mainstream gamebook/novel with meaningful sales? I sure can't). The erotica are the only examples of which I am aware, and are by a notable writer with her own article here (full disclosure: I know Mary Anne, have for years). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can name another "mainstream" gamebook with meaningful sales. It is Life's Lottery by Kim Newman. As for the notability of the author, it may be a valid point but I would re-structure the information in the article to emphasize the fact that a well-known media personality has written a book of this kind, since presenting the book itself as overly innovative is not verified information. As for erotica, you can find quite a few interactive series in this authoritative database [3]. Ladril (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Newman is speculative fiction, not mainstream. You've got more of a point with the erotica. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the bestselling quality of the McElhatton book established by reliable, third party sources? Ladril (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a couple to the article, yeah. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:REME MUSEUM

Do you think that it was really in the best interests of the encyclopedia to block this user without even offering them guidance on local policies and guidelines?

It appears they were adding encyclopedic material in good faith [4].

Perhaps you could have helped them to arrange a user name change, instead of blocking them? –xeno^talk 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In cases where they don't start by advertising themselves on their userpage, yes; that's what the {{causeblock}} is for. The userpage read to me like a classic self-advertisement. I won't object if you unblock them, as long as you monitor their compliance with the rules. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A single sentence about a museum on a Wikipedia userpage - that's hardly an abuse of the project - especially when they are creating articles. Please consider not jumping straight to blocking in cases where they have contributed material in good faith. This was a museum employee - someone who works at an institute of knowledge with similar goals as Wikipedia: we should be welcoming their contributions, not driving them away. –xeno^talk 22:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Thanks for the quick intervention; I proposed at WP:3RRNB that in view of the shifting IPs, a short semi-prot might be indicated, and I'd have done that myself. Up to you. Rodhullandemu 23:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to another admin to do that, so that nobody can accuse me of unilaterally piling on. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins should be free to be brave, but if the edit-warring recurs from another set of IPs, so be it. I would have done differently, but I will not interfere with your discretion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the G11Clause?

What is blatant promotion according to the Wikipedia editors As a writer , I would like to know how do we created an article that will not be considered as blatant promotion or advertisement. Please help us write about the companies that are doing excellent business.

Telco News (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Telco News

Avoid language that reeks of the press release: phrases and terms like "mastermind behind", "stands firm-footed as one of the fast-growing and leading," "[w]ith a vision to help people communicate with their dear ones", "renowned providers", and "state-of-the-art"; abuse of the word "solutions"; use of the term "partners" as if that made the subject a peer to a firm hundreds of times their size. No mission statement, spin-doctored self-flattery, taglines from ad campaigns, and the like. We want simple, flat, impartial language that makes no judgements and leaves the readers to decide for themselves the importance of the subject. We need information that comes from neutral reliable third-party sources, not from trade-journal tearsheets which parrot company publicity handouts. We don't want product or service lists, call-outs of all the famous customers, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that we consider advertisements (even when euphemized as "public relations"), spamlinking, and any kind of SEO work as forms of vandalism, to be treated accordingly. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint. But is it applicable for any article which tells about a company or organization? We have cited many such articles by telecom companies who have told only about there company , without any informative matter. Anyways, we shall adhere to the guidelines provided. Telco News (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Telco News

"We"? I'd not even noticed that this was a company account, but I notice that another, more alert editor has blocked this account, since such accounts are not permitted here. Also note that articles by the subject are almost never acceptable here, for reasons that should be obvious. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Tsavomusic

Any objections to an unblock for a name change? Looks like a reasonably formatted request  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as "passed Tsavo editing duties on to another" doesn't mean "I've found a meatpuppet." --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, we'll see how it goes, I'm sure there's enough "good" editors out there to spot that.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Schreiber Family

Hi I came across this website about the Schreiber Family. [5]. It has the obituary for Governor Schreiber's dad who died ay age 92. Maybe you can make use of some of this especially the obituary. Thank-RFD (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User:RadioFan and User:RHaworth

I get the impression that these two are going to be scrambling around Wikipedia filing AfDs right-and-left about American fandom because they can -- especially since they've been challenged on, so they know they can stimulate a reaction. This kind of wiki-bullying is something I have seen before, and since you have better involvement with both sf fandom and Wikipedia than I, I hope you can put a stop to it. With Wikipedia I have dropped away for quite a time because I tend to get angry at Wikilawyers and Wikibullies, which helps neither me nor the inclusionist standards in which I believe. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkevin (talk • contribs)

• "right-and-left" - don't be ridiculous. How many AfDs related to fandom have I actually created? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• • After smugly and arrogantly replying to my comment to him on his own user talk page (look at it for yourself and see whether or not I'm right), RHaworth archived it so no more comments could be made to it. His actions, to me, confirm my speculation that the problem is "big-frog-in-small-pond" syndrome, as he continues to assert that within the Wikipedia pond he has the right to AfD articles the subjects of which he literally knows nothing. This kind of prima-donna behavior drives away editors with a sense of their own limitations and knowledge, and reduces the value of the encyclopedia enormously. If you were to be able to put a stop to this incompetence of action on his part, it would be a service both to fandom and to Wikipedia itself, as the Dunning–Kruger effect seems to be in play here. -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• • P. S. My apology about the unsigned comment. I had punched the four tildes, but must have accidentally deleted them in a revision. It isn't my habit to post anonymously. -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarique Mustafa

There's a new submission for a page that you previously deleted-> Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tarique_Mustafa

Can you please take a look at it? I have also requested couple of other people to take a look at it. Meanwhile, I have marked it "Under Review". If you feel it should not be accepted, can you please reject the page or let me know and I will do it. Otherwise I will go ahead with the usual review process and give feedback to the author accordingly.

regards

--abhishek singh (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment. Thanks for your time

regards

abhishek singh (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Plantscape Inc. Deleted Page

Hi Mike,

I am unsure why you deleted our Company page. Can you please advise.

Regards,

Bill Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsdesign1 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "our Company page"? Do you have some sort of financial interest in this company? As to why it was deleted: it was an article about a small local company with no indication that the company is in any way notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article about it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict on User talk:Dcn8943

I think there was an edit conflict. Correct me if I am wrong. Creation7689 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Both tags are valid warnings; no harm done. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Deletionist"

For someone who claims to be concerned about server overload on wiki you certainly made yourself an extensive bio on here. I happened to run into one of your deletions and wanted to see who it was that did that. Low and behold you have a much bigger page then he (well, "he" has none thanks to you). You said "I believe that many articles here ... are violations of our standards: ... "politician self-aggrandisement" (sic) um hello? Ever look in the mirror? I then looked at your edits. Wow, you certainly are busy being a pain in the ... You are just ONE of the reasons why wiki really stinks. I wish you would live by your own standards, ie "I mean that I hold articles here to higher standards of notability, verifiability, etc." I can't even deal with the irony here! So long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.75.95 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Userpages are to let people know who these people are who edit the Wikipedia; I do not hide behind a veil of anonymity, and I state my opinions publicly and clearly, so that my biases are evident for all. I'm sorry if you somehow find that offensive, my anonymous attacker. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, His bio should be here. Not yours. Just my opinion! Oh btw, the person I wanted to look up was Yariv Oppenheimer. Also, I'm nobody and have no wiki account nor will I ever have one. Been there done that, "HATED IT" Yes, I'm kind of grumpy. Nothing personal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.75.95 (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So, if he's so notable, write an article about him! That's how we get articles. Nothing in the deleted article indicated that he was notable (unlike the organization he works for, which I've certainly admired for some time now). Officers of notable organizations are often not themselves notable; "the work is everything, the man nothing". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ArabCrunch

Hi! I don't know why you deleted the page that I created: ArabCrunch, ArabCrunch is somewhat an Aravic version of TechCrunch. Before you deleted it, it was deleted on February by another user. You could have just put a deletion tag on the page istead of deleting it. Please would you send to me the content of the page you've deleted to recreate it. I spent more than an hour creating and bettering this page. Also, this page is about a Jordanian start-up company. There are hundreds of pages about American websites and there are just few about Arab website. If someone invests his valuable time in starting quality articles about Middle-Eastern topics, you bite them. Don't bite newcomers -although I am not a newcomer; I created 69 quality articles about the Middle East and I added tens of infoboxes to different pages.--Salah Almhamdi (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to User:Salah Almhamdi/ArabCrunch; but if the website is actually notable, you completely failed to provide any evidence or even assertion of such a thing. Links to the subject's own website, and a LinkedIn listing, do not constitute notability. Putting -Crunch on the end does nothing magic to make the website notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! You're an understanding editor.--Salah Almhamdi (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why u delete my thing?

Hey Orange Mike! first of all why is that your name and second why the hell would you dlete my informative page. Obviously you think you are the wikipedia expert and your wrong. From what I gather from you dp for wikipedia, you have no life but sitting in front of a computer on wikipedia and thats obviously why you're so fat. You suck. Sincerely a guy with no sincerity!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazza13wiki (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Blooded (film)

Blooded (film) - Hi Mike, the creator removed the prod, what do you think about the article now? Seems to be a smidgen of notability..? A couple of the externals seem a bit extreme activist but perhaps that is just the nature of the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yunus

Hello

Unless I am wrong (please correct me if that's the case), you deleted [6] with the argument that all those should be in the Muhammad Yunus article. I actually do not agree with you, but that's fine (I do believe a separate article would be a better idea, but that's fine to put it in the main article as well). My main problem is that you actually deleted the work of several people... but did not seem to have checked if the work was in the main article at all. Which means the work done by these volunteers has been deleted and they can not retrieve it. I do not think that this is correct and I strongly object it. Please either undelete the article and set up a vote for deletion rather than speedy deleting it. Or, please copy paste the content in the Yunus article or in its discussion page so that the editors working on it could move on with their work. I certainly think that the content of this article is worth keeping and pure deletion with no respect for the authors is really not a cool way to welcome new people here. Thank you for your help. Anthere (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We have to avoid the creation of "forks" with a non-neutral viewpoint. I'll restore the content to the main article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I thank you Orangemike. Anthere (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

lee gold

I added it to afd so you can get a final determination as this has been make as not notable before apparently. If its keep. at least people will stop prodding it. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yunus

Hello

Unless I am wrong (please correct me if that's the case), you deleted [7] with the argument that all those should be in the Muhammad Yunus article. I actually do not agree with you, but that's fine (I do believe a separate article would be a better idea, but that's fine to put it in the main article as well). My main problem is that you actually deleted the work of several people... but did not seem to have checked if the work was in the main article at all. Which means the work done by these volunteers has been deleted and they can not retrieve it. I do not think that this is correct and I strongly object it. Please either undelete the article and set up a vote for deletion rather than speedy deleting it. Or, please copy paste the content in the Yunus article or in its discussion page so that the editors working on it could move on with their work. I certainly think that the content of this article is worth keeping and pure deletion with no respect for the authors is really not a cool way to welcome new people here. Thank you for your help. Anthere (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We have to avoid the creation of "forks" with a non-neutral viewpoint. I'll restore the content to the main article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I thank you Orangemike. Anthere (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

lee gold

I added it to afd so you can get a final determination as this has been make as not notable before apparently. If its keep. at least people will stop prodding it. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blooded (film)

I hate bumping heads with you, but please note that I have ben addressing your concerns about the earlier lack of neutrality in the article Blooded (film). What was nominated was a mess, yes. It was self-serving and smelled fouly of promotional hype. But I have removed any links to or comments attributed to the imaginary The Real Animal League, and have rewritten the article to let it be clear that sources consider the film to be more a mockumantary than a documentary.[8] As I will be keeping an eye on it to prevent the reinsertion of improper content and soures, and since the film is slated for it premiere in less than a week, might you agree that incubation for a short while could serve the project? If this controversial film gets coverage, than the article will be further improved and returned to mainspace. If it does not get coverage, then it will be deleted. What say? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Update on the article "FORUDEF"

I now created a new article about FORUDEF, having used a different username and tried to abandon any sort of personal interest from the article. I hope this will meet the requirements! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bundema (talk • contribs) 12:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed an organization that I was writing about. I understand the problems with having the same username as the article itself, therefore I'd like to create a new user account and try to describe the organization in a better, less biased manner. Will that be granted? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bundema (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You must adhere to the various rules on conflict of interest, etc., as linked to on the talk page of the blocked account. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

/* Redemption movement */ NPOV? I think not.

Hello Orange Mike, I see that you completely misunderstood my 'edits' on the Redemption Movement page. No, I was not trying to prevent NPOV, quite the contrary sir. My initial anger came from those who were silently removing my repeated good-will attempts to maintain NPOV, you would clearly be able to tell this had you actually read my statements, and not acted hastily and out of misinformed judgment. Thank You for re-evaluating this topic, and should you choose to respond to my comments here, please remember to avoid personal attacks, assume good faith, and always sign your posts with four tildes, so I can be sure that you used your 'personal signature'. Visitor10001 (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were calculated to present an extremely WP:FRINGE claim as if it were part of normal political discourse. We cover all the tax protestor theories, even the gold-fringed-flag kinds of things; but WP:NPOV does not mean that we are not obliged to treat them as anything taken seriously by the law, the courts or the scholars. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

tamil nadu

Thaks for correcting if I read it wrong, I just rewrote this comment about him.

Article - "AIADMK stalwarts like deputy speakers S. Gandhirajan and V.P. Balasubramaniam nurtured the constituency well and made it AIADMK fortress.*

me - In 2006 Gandhirajan was considered to have strengthened the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's position in Vedasandur

anyway, Indian politics is something I know nothing about, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

He apparently was deprived of re-nomination to his seat as an MLA by AIADMK leadership, and later bolted to the rival DMK because of how he felt he'd been treated. (Indian politics is a complex matter.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Conflict of interest?

Thanks for the advise Orangemike, apologies for not having gone through available help/FAQ articles earlier. I have requested for advise and suggestions via the talk page.

Cheers, Itkidontheblock (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Green Twilight

You deleted the Green Twilight page. Why are you showing all this aggressivity towards us?Jerjames13 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you were abusing Wikipedia in violation of several of our principles? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

UAA

Were you saying I could be more mainstream in my approach at UAA, and if so, how?

Btw, how is the mother-of-all-recalls going? I suspect you're involved. Hell, I suspect you started it :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was saying you're a nicer guy than I am at UAA; I was not saying that's a bad thing. As to the recalls: my Senator was one of the Fab 14; but I'm supporting the efforts to make sure that while Walker may not remember us, we'll certainly recall him! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck, I hear the effort has a lot of money and organization, it's not the usual hot air. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

American Income Life Insurance Company

An article you deleted has risen, zombie-like, and is back. American Income Life Insurance Company, formerly American Income Life. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The company itself is notable; the problem is bias and sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cort and Fatboy deletion?

Hello Orange Mike,

I've had this account for a while but, despite this, I'm relatively new to the world of Wikipedia. You recently deleted the article for "Cort and Fatboy" a popular radio show in Portland, Oregon. The page was deleted in February but I created a new page under the show's revised title. I bulked it up with citations from both the Associated Press and several, large-circulation publications from Oregon including The Oregonian and Willamette Week. I spent a goodly amount of time on this project as well.

Based on the show's clips, I feel that it's more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, especially in light of the ever-growing number of articles on the site and the increasing minutia and localized focus of their content. I would be happy to revise the Cort and Fatboy page in whatever manner you see fit but I humbly request that you take another look at this case and the circumstances. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumptowner (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted after a full-blown Articles for Deletion discussion, just last month. If you feel you had come up with significant content not contained in the prior deleted versions, you should discuss it with User:NawlinWiki, the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cort and Fatboy Show. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the advice. I'll see where that leads me. Cheers! -Stumptowner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumptowner (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Arthur VanCleve Hill wiki & potential conflict of interest

Hi Orangemike. My name is BorskFeylia, and I received a couple messages from you regarding a wiki page that I just created. Thank you for your suggestions on how to improve the article, and for helping to clean up some of my rookie designs. This is the first wiki page that I've created from scratch, though I've made minor edits to a number of articles.

In response to some of your points: 1. I'm not affiliated with Arthur Hill or the University of Minnesota (or a competitor) in any way. 2. I'll certainly add some citations to the biographical info, 3. For some reason an external link I posted to a book written by the author was deleted. It referenced the website of the publisher, which is the only place where his Encyclopedia is available. 4. I was imitating the formatting of another wiki page that has only one complaint/problem box on it (for being an "orphan"). I hope after making some of the changes you recommended, my wiki page will be able to live happily ever after. 5. You put up a problem box about the neutrality of the article. Can you tell me how the article is not neutral? I'm just not seeing it.

Also, for some reason this wiki page doesn't come up when I use wikipedia's search engine to look for "Arthur VanCleve Hill". Do you know how I can fix that?

I'm still learning about how to do this, so thanks for your patience!

Thanks Orangemike! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfeylia (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Any article taken from the subject's resume/CV is going to be skewed in their favor; thus the NPOV tag. If the book is only available from the publisher, that seems to argue that it is not of note. We generally restrict external links to the subject's own website to one, which is there; the publisher is unlikely to be a reliable source for much of anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, Orangemike. I just finished trying to apply your points to the page by (1) deleting most of the articles cited, leaving only a few highlights, (2) leaving off any link to the Encyclopedia, and (3) leaving off any other external links aside to the subject's profile page. I also added a category as well as some info for the "personaldata" box, and another inline citation. Does that address all the concerns you cited? If so, shall I delete the flags (e.g. "Multiple issues" box) or do you do that? Thanks for the help! Bfeylia (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike, I posted the last message (above) a week ago. I waited a week but you didn't reply. So I removed the problem boxes on the wiki page, but you immediately reposted them, and said that I haven't implemented any of the changes at all. I made changes which I thought were enough, and I detailed those changes in my last message (above), and asked you if you agreed. Haven't I been respectful and courteous to you in these communications, and open to your advice? Why haven't you responded with the same courtesy in answering my inquiries and telling me in detail what I need to do to improve the page? Bfeylia (talk)

Optimal thinking added to Optimism and Mathematical optimization

Hi Mike, This is just a heads up, because you blocked a user named Optimalsolutions before. The IP editor User talk:71.106.21.208 has added "optimal thinking" to two articles, optimism and optimization (mathematics). The edit to optimism inserted the leaden-in-nature phrase "Unlike optimal thinking (Rosalene Glickman, Ph.D. Optimal Thinking: How to Be Your Best Self. New York: Wiley 2002.) which is realistic in nature," into the second sentence of the lead. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Noteworthy

Hi Mike, is there any chance you could take a look at this article? I PRODed it in February but it has been restored (see the links on my talk page). It looks to me as if NMUSIC is not met (university choir, that appeared on a reality show once) and the COI issues are obvious, but I don't have the time or the internet connection to check in detail before nomming for AFD. If they are notable, then the article certainly needs to be heavily despammed. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Grunt bands, Woztok

Greetings, Mike, Woztok here, the one that tried to just add a tiny bit more to the History of Grunt Bands, but sadly had it deleted by Night Gyr, and yes I did have a go at him. This was the first time I had ever been on Wikipedia and I am very unfamiliar with all the tools, expressions and workings. However, my anger has gone, anmd I do not much care about that additional info going on Wikipedia, as it is now somewhere else on the web and written by some guy who saw my piece for a fleeting moment. I have however written something more exciting and useful to mamny citizens on how to avoid paying libel damages quite easily and not against the law. It's based on the old precept ' You can't sue a man of straw' meaning that if you have nothing and make sure you lose your assets then no damages can be paid nor can an attachment of earnings if you go ' self-employed' it's perfect, it leaves the plaintiff with a bill and the state. I would like it on the pages, but I have been pushed out to an indefinite ban just over the grunt article which isn't really fair. Other bans are for a day or so, therefore I'd like it lifting so that the new page can rightly appear. I don't know of how to get this lifted because there doesn't seem to be a proper system I can e-mail to put my case forward. So I guess I need your help. (----) user Woztok 22nd March 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woztok (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not blocked. However, your "exciting new idea" on how to evade your legal responsibilities, in addition to not being new nor (in all probability) lawful, has no place in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Woztok here, Mike. Sorry you disagree about the page, but I can word it like an official thing, and I must point out that you are confusing civil law with criminal law, civil law has different parameters that are basically compensation based -- litigation, and this is the area libel and defamatory claims fall. I have researched this and been to www.bentlawyersandcops.com for my sources. It is purely a situation of guarding oneself against those who want to take something away because they have used the courts to seek revenge. Poor people do not have the money to give and would be afraid of losing what they have, surely free speech should have some allies.

(----) woztok I could go to the sandbox ant see what happens with a new information based draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woztok (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

www.bentlawyersandcops.com is not a reliable source. Remember, also, that we don't do original research and synthesis here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival

Hi Mike,

You just deleted my user name(rootsandbluesfestival) and page(Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival), i was unaware of the things i was doing were wrong i am just a vounteer with the Salmon Arm Root and Blues festival and thought it deserved a page i was trying to fix it when you got rid of it, Could you tell me what i need to do better to make it real, i noticed that other festival have pages that were VERY simalar to mine. The Roots and Blues Festival is a INTERNATIONAL festival it brings in tons of people every year, and as for the citing i was having issues with that but i have LOTS of third party info on this festival, TONS of articles have been done about it, and ive been voolunteering for years, which is why i know so much. Please tell me how to fix it and i will this festival deseves this page, PS it is a non profit socity that should make a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K87h (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See the notes left you at the talk page of your blocked account. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

UAA

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced - given your edit summary here[9] - that you fully read my rationale for reporting the user name. I understand that editors are free to edit under their own names. That is not why I reported it. I am not saying that the user is an impersonator. The article that I provided is about a piece of software that is published by a "Greg Book". "GBook", along with the fact that the user's only edits are to the article that I provided, suggest a promotional username and a conflict of interest. Strikerforce (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's clearly COI; but it's not a UAA violation, if the editor is G. Cook, to call yourself G. Cook! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New account, same spam?

Hi, Mike. I don't know what the version of Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival you deleted was like, but it's been reposted by the same user (this editor) under a different username. Still seems spammy to me. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Coffee Party Progressives

Some of us associated with Coffee Party Progressives did edit the entry AFTER it was created, but user Xenophrenic came along editing it to look worse before marking it for speedy deletion. Xenophrenic appears to regularly police and "maintain" the Coffee Party USA page as well as cleaning it up. His own user page says "Any uncivil comments will be deleted." Civility is one of the core principles of the Coffee Party USA.

Though we are two completely different organizations, there has been some contention in the past to those who felt that any organization with Coffee Party in their name answers to Coffee Party USA or is not significant in comparison to Coffee Party USA.

We have groups in Memphis TN, Wisconsin, and Savannah GA. We also have affiliated groups who are independent but call themselves Coffee Party who communicate with us. We have 21,000 on Facebook.

The founder & national coordinator was in fact interviewed on MSNBC national news from the site of the One Nation Working Together March, with a caption of the name of the organization and his title. We are mentioned on == Regarding Coffee Party Progressives ==

Some of us associated with Coffee Party Progressives did edit the entry AFTER it was created, but user Xenophrenic came along editing it to look worse before marking it for speedy deletion. Xenophrenic appears to regularly police and "maintain" the Coffee Party USA page as well as cleaning it up. His own user page says "Any uncivil comments will be deleted." Civility is one of the core principles of the Coffee Party USA.

Though we are two completely different organizations, there has been some contention in the past to those who felt that any organization with Coffee Party in their name answers to Coffee Party USA or is not significant in comparison to Coffee Party USA.

We have groups in Memphis TN, Wisconsin, and Savannah GA. We also have affiliated groups who are independent but call themselves Coffee Party who communicate with us. We have 21,000 on Facebook.

The founder & national coordinator was in fact interviewed on MSNBC national news from the site of the One Nation Working Together March, with a caption of the name of the organization and his title. We do not have the recording of this, but it happened. We are mentioned on http://www.theballot.org/ as a supporting organization on the bottom. We are on the long list of all endorsers on this .pdf directly from the One Nation Working Together site http://action.onenationworkingtogether.org/page/-/docs/ONWT%20All%20Endorsers%20as%20of%209.16.2010.pdf

A local newspaper article captured on this automatic news accumulator has the evidence of the article we were mentioned in: http://www.roadrunner.com/sports/topicdl/article/dlt/0a8TfFEg7p6Kw/06jz0sC3QI6fR/Group_pushing_for_jobs as well as Darrell probably has a copy.

To say we are not a "real organization" or "valid" is fallacious.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.228.51 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC) 

Nobody is saying the organization does not exist, and I don't understand what you think you mean by "valid". What was deleted was an advertisement, and made no claims of notability for the organization, a necessity for an article to remain. 21,000 Facebook friends does not constitute notability, by the way.

Democratic Party

Are you still a Democrat? --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 04:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the blocked alternatives under the two-party system, how could I not be? Naturally, my heart is with the moderate wing of the good ol' Socialist Party of America. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're a Democrat but your heart lies more in the Socialist Party USA? --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 17:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup; boring old-fashioned Milwaukee Christian social democrat in the Frank Zeidler tradition. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I will add that this is fairly typical because of the duopoly embedded (probably irrevocably) in the U.S. political system. There are many right-libertarians and minimalists who are now (uncomfortably) in the Republican Party, because they fear the goals of the present-day Democrats more than they fear their own neo-conservative, imperialist, statist and/or theocratic allies within the G.O.P. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Blooded (film)

I am seeking a re-evaluation for a possible return to mainspace, and as you were the editor who nominated the original article for deletion due to obscure reviews and because you felt that Wikipedia was itself being exploited to promote the film, I thought it proper to bring subsequent improvements to your attention. I'd like you to look at the version now in Incubation. With its debut on the March 18, and with the additional critical commentary that became available in numerous reliable sources, I have addressed the style, tone, content, and sourcing, and believe it is noe encyclopedic, properly neutral, and meets the criteria of WP:NF. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed two fawning quotes that turned out to be straight from the press kit. That kind of scrutiny needs to be applied to all the cites and quotes here, since the original spam still shows through in such details. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I like your edits. I suppose the original author may be unhappy about how the article now sources and shares the falseness under which the film was originaly promoted. But c'est la vie... we are here for the readers, and not the article author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Beware of what you ask for; you just might get it. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion for The Haunted Haicenda (novel)

Mr. Mike, I would like to say that my article is not fake. You can find it under the search for Madison Cooper. You have probably never heard of this book but I don't blame you. You see it went out of print because the author Madison Cooper had his literary files burned after his death. This book and other summaries can be found on some rare book sights. It's not very expensive and was never very popular. I'm sure you'll see that I'm not putting false information up on wikipedia. Nice to meet you Sodins 3/25/11 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodins (talk • contribs)

It's not a question of whether the book exists; but not every one of the hundreds of thousands of books published is notable enough to deserve an article in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Dispute - Ayurveda (band)

RE: below is a help question from me that you replied to:

The Question: "I moved my page from my user space to Ayurveda (Band) in an attempt to the launch the page. In return, I now have this message at the top of the page: This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup. If you are the article's creator, you can seek feedback on your new article. (July 2010)

Will the "review" happen automatically by WikiReviewers or do I have to take some other action. I am most anxious to get this page launched. Thank you. Whysosirius (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Answer: The article has been deleted as unambiguous advertising so it is a moot point, but in any event the best thing to do is ask at WP:Requests for feedback. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"

I would like to dispute your decision to delete the Ayurveda (band) page as "unambiguous advertising". I dispute it for many reasons and in no particular order. 1. The information provides a different meaning to the pre-existing Wikipedia page on Ayurveda which has to do with Ayurvedic medicine. 2. I looked at similar musician Wiki pages such as that for St. Vincent and I see a correlation between the two. Both bamds play at common venues and therefore can be considered peers. Why one and not the other? 3. Ayurveda has a legion of followers for example, over 15,000 fans on Reverbnation. Clearly there is an interest in knowing more encyclopedic info about the band, its history, and its catalog of music/videos. 4. There is a multi-cultural aspect to info on Ayurveda as two of its members are Nepali and there are thousands of fans from there. Diwas Gurung, lead guitar, and Ayurveda are included on Wiki Nepalese Music and the band is also on the wiki page for Ithaca ny music and musicians. So there is a Wiki history here that should revert readers of both those pages to more info on the band. 5. Ayurveda's latest work "H. luminous" is of interest in that it is a concept piece that plays off an existing Wikipage, 2012. The piece, "H. luminous" is a work of art that espouses beliefs contained in the 2012 page that this period is "spiritually transformative"...and centers "upon various interpretations of the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar." 5. Ayurveda is also relevant in that they are a group of young men who are committed to the environment and global issues. From silkscreening their own merchandise and using recyclable materials to being active in social issues, this page sets them apart from many other bands that are featured in Wikipedia. They are committed locally and globally (an orphanage in Nepal) and the sharing of this info isn't about marketing but informing. Taken as a whole, I cannot accept that this page represents a marketing ploy and I am committed to getting your decision to delete the page overturned. I would like to work with you in order to make this page work. If not through you, please let me know a point of contact within Wikipedia where I can make the case for making this page available to online users. Thank you in advance for your assistance. 12:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Whysosirius (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I submitted a request for deletion review before discussing this with you as I didn't realize it was you who had deleted the page, not ukexpat. Whysosirius (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I replied to the NCHPQ question, Orangemike deleted the article. – ukexpat (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bankhallbretherton

Despite your unblock for him to change his username (link), more than a month later, Bankhallbretherton (talk · contribs) still has not done so. Should he be reblocked? Cunard (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I gather, from his note, that he simply created a new account with no link to this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information added to Sephira wiki page

Hi There,

I am wondering how I add information to the above page. It currently has very little about the UK sephira artist. I would like to add more information to this page as well as one of the artist boxes on the right hand side of the page, so there is one each for both artists that are using the same name. I have been using this name before 2006 which is when the other artists have listed as their beginning so find it a little unfair with their domination of the page. All my edits have remained neutral and fair to both.

Please can you enlighten me as to how to do this without breaking any rules. I have only copied the format of what is already there and added the extra information in the same way as it is already presented and after reading many pages I am still a bit confused as to why my updates get deleted.

PLease advise,

Much love. Merkabatribe (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I now see you have taken off the few lines about the Sephira UK artist that have been on the site for a long time now and marked these lines as vandalism? Please could you explain your actions for this as I do not see how these lines that have been unchanged for a long time can be deemed as vandalism? Merkabatribe (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Just because something has been on the site for awhile, that does not necessarily mean that it was an accurate piece of content. Strikerforce (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That also does not make it vandalism.... Merkabatribe (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't disambiguate more than one topic with similar names, by jumbling them into the same article. If the other topic is notable (and from what I've seen, I suspect that the other topic is 1. you; and 2. not notable), then a new article with a disambiguating qualifier, such as Sephira (artist) should have been created. And what is meant by "artist" anyway? Is this person a singer, painter, saxophonist, performance artist, sculptor, stripper or what? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. So its a first come first served basis on the name then? Even though I have been using the name for longer than the artist on the page. Unfair, but I suppose what you gonna do. Thanks for the, erm, help I suppose? .... oh and to say I am "not notable" is a statement you are not educated enough to make and is slightly offensive. I suggest you work on your people skills and life attitude. Merkabatribe (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ayurveda (band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ayurveda (band). 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. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike, I would really like to work with you with regard to the Ayurveda (band) page I tried to launch. I saw your comments on the Deletion Review page and have taken those to heart. I would like to try to salvage my work now that I've had feedback. I am very new to Wikipedia even to the point where I don't really know how to send you a message other than through here. What I would like to know is where is my page and can I get it back on my Whysosirius User page to try to better meet the requirements for getting something launched in the future. I see that you're a busy guy on Wiki but I hope you have just a few minutes to guide me in the right direction. Whysosirius (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy John's

Mike, please unblock the Jimmy John's editor and have another admin review the account for a block. The outcome isn't in much question but having an IWW organizer use his admin tools to block a person who is in a content dispute over IWW related material looks terrible. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had the time and energy to be a Wob organizer; but your suggestion is a sound one, and I've followed it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Anomaly Warzone Earth

Hi, I just created an article for an upcoming video game (Anomaly Warzone Earth) with several reputable sources and it was deleted as advertising. I am not associated with this game or its creator and it is not advertising. I could add more references if that's necessary, it's not lacking in notability. Thanks! MigrantP (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored it; but a non-existent game from a non-notable publisher is a dubious claim for notability, and a WP:CRYSTAL problem as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like it's the first game from that developer. It is getting a fair amount of coverage so I've linked in some more reports. I noticed you mentioned you hate the citation format -- which format would you recommend? I try to make detailed citations. MigrantP (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer non-templated cites, thus:

Dudley, Violet. "Georgie Tirebiter, Metal Demangement, and the 'Shoes for Industry' Movement." Journal of Utter Piffle Vol. 3, #17 (March, 1954); pp. 16-69.

slap ref tags on the front and back, and you're ready to go. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society

I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities should be brought into this, do you have any suggestions on the method?Naraht (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking; I'll post something on the project's page. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also after going through the archives on the Wikiproject, I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and colonies of Tau Kappa Epsilon and the fact that it was a pretty overwhelming keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

Actually, at least one person commenting back then was arguing from the basis of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS fallacy. Still: thanks for the link. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Promotional accounts"

Please don't block users for using names which you consider to be promotional, unless they're actively promoting an organisation or product. As a recent example, you blocked User:R.s.williams.inc despite the account not having made a single edit, and User:BPK Studios despite the account having made only one, non-problematic edit (a test edit to mainspace rather than userspace, but that's a common mistake from new users).

Contrary to the message you're leaving on the talk pages of users you're blocking (I recognise that the wording of {{uw-softerblock}} is inaccurate, but users using templates are responsible for the messages they leave), Wikipedia's policy for these circumstances is explicitly not to block the account. As per the warning you've already received on this matter, please stop blocking users without good cause and without discussion; your continuing to do so after the previous warning is beginning to appear to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. – iridescent 14:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, although I disagree with the last clause. What changes do you suggest we make in the wording of the softerblock template, then? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the template is not the issue, since you shouldn't be blocking these users in the first place and this shouldn't be using this template. The issue is that despite previous warnings, you continue to abuse your admin status by blocking accounts when you have no legitimate reason to do so. Accounts should only be blocked when the account is unambiguously engaging in promotional activity, and even then as a last resort—we have no policy against people editing articles about themselves or their organisations. Can I suggest you re-familiarise yourself with the actual wording of Wikipedia's blocking policy regarding new accounts, which—despite repeated warnings—you appear to continue to ignore. – iridescent

(talk page stalker) The prior warning appears to have been erroneous: a user called REME MUSEUM created an article, furnished with content from the REME Museum, which included an external link to a site the user "own[s], maintain[s], or represent[s]" (WP:EL#ADV), something which seems -- to me, at any rate -- like a "problematic" "promotional behaviour".

But even setting aside the question of promotion, such edits, coupled with the username, strongly suggest that REME MUSEUM was a shared account representing a group rather than an individual.

If the warning was erroneous, it was rightly ignored. Where was the abuse? -- Rrburke (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In the museum case, unlike the two names Iridescent cites, the editor was doing WP:NOBLECAUSE-type edits, and a causeblock would probably have been the less discouraging way to go, rather than a spamuserblock. I have taken that incident to heart, not ignored it, as my edits show. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please also take to heart the guidance offered at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings. Thanks, –xeno^talk 17:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: It Happened Here

I just added to the section that was already there. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

True, true. I put a note on the talk page, in hopes that folks will understand the issue here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

King Dookie

Why are you deleting my posts on King Dookie? this is something very dear to me, and it is 100 percent true. Please let the story be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtayl09 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Librarybookers/Tracy Mattes

User:Librarybookers/Tracy Mattes, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Librarybookers/Tracy Mattes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Librarybookers/Tracy Mattes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Adam Parker is up again - adding talkpage

Hi Orangemike. Quick note: I'm restarting Talk:Adam Parker, a page you G8-d 13 March 2008. While on foot, as a WP:BLP, still needs this. You may have G7-d the article itself. Can you have a little look at both of these? Thank you! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Both already re-G7-d and re-G8-d. Please ignore me! :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

References to reinstate Barbizon Lighting Company

OrangeMike-

I started the post yesterday but was going to cite the story about the history of this company and add more information about the significance of the company as Barbizon Lighting was one, if not the first company in the entertainment industry to do theatrical systems integration. In fact specifications for theatrical systems integrators have been written based on what Barbizon provides.

Barbizon is also an anomaly in the entertainment industry because of it's longevity (since 1947) and because Barbizon works in so many sectors of entertainment lighting. (Theatre, film, television, Museums.)

One other item of note is that Barbizon championed the arc lamp (HMI) and was the first to distribute them in the United States.

The references I was going to cite are http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?referral=mypages%20%20uite&refresh=4m1MzF2013tN&PBID=5da5f7e7-8f2e-4db3-a0a6-eb192531d328&skip

Also http://livedesignonline.com/stagingrental/jonathan_resnick/

Let me know if this is appropriate.

Greatly appreciated.

Tobin.01:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobinneis (talk • contribs)

As the Director of Marketing for Barbizon, you are the worst possible person to be trying to create an article on Barbizon; and an article by the Director of Marketing is not going to be considered a reliable source, either. Please see our guidance for persons with a conflict of interest for some suggestions. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

COI & neutrality on Bridgwater College

Hi, You added COI & neutrality banners on Bridgwater College. I've started a discussion on the talk page about this & it would be great if you could contribute & explain what you think the issues are so that we can achieve consensus about whether they are still needed.— Rod ^talk 20:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MystiCon

Just remembered you have an interest in science-fiction. Take a look at this AfD and tell me if I'm right, if I'm off my rocker or somewhere in between. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Icon (Iowa science fiction convention) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Icon (Iowa science fiction convention) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icon (Iowa science fiction convention) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Nielsen Hayden

This edit looks fishy to me.[10] It removes two images and changes his profession from editor to clerk. The one-edit account has a name that appears to reference his wife. I've left a note on that user page, and sent an email to TNH's public email account. My suspicion is that it's a bit of false-flag vandalism from someone who knows them. If I don't hear back in a day or two my inclination is to revert the edit and block the account as an impostor. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"TNH" is a frequent nickname for his wife, Teresa Nielsen Hayden; this was obvious mischief and impersonation, and has been blocked as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks for handling it.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit history storage

A note about your stated (User page) concern with storage space. Take a look at this. Articles are not the problem. Media is not the problem. Edit histories aka revisions are the problem, by a 40 to 1 ratio. You do not appear to me to be a full-on deletionist, so I can expect a reasonable assessment of the following assertion: The future of WP data storage hog elimination is to get articles locked and auto-bots blocked; deleting articles does not help much. Anarchangel (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert MacDonald Ford for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert MacDonald Ford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert MacDonald Ford until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wknight94 ^talk 01:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Forster

Apparently, you deleted an article about Michael Forster, a British and Canadian artist. I will be the first to admit that the original author's motives in posting the article were promotional, but I had taken some time to clean up the more promotional language and find at least one source that verified that Forster was a pretty notable artist in history of Surrealist art in Canada. I'd ask to have the article restored, but that would imply that I would have the time and knowledge to improve it, which I really don't. However, I think if the article is restored, I can recruit help from WP:WikiProject Art to see if something can be made of it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

I would like to recreate page Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza because I was told if secondary sources appear that speak of the subject then it can be recreated.

In addition to all the sources in the original articcle: http://www.thread.co.nz/news/5796/15/Talk-like-an-Egyptian/d,thread-article and http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/?t=1602 have appeared.. Both are clearly secondary even third sources others included ( i am tracking down the rest) http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/4564224/Bombing-shames-all http://www.viduba.com/video:QVlRxZlRwF2VFVDRhZEaQ1UVwdlV31TP http://www.humblevoice.com/ola-abaza http://wn.com/Aphasic_Drivel_Musical_Education__Ola-abaza_Preview_video_by_Utopia_Creations,_France http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4598675/Kiwis-fear-for-loved-ones-in-Egypt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyrussell34 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fan service

There isn't any consensus to remove File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png from the Fan service article. There's presently an ongoing discussion at Talk:Fan_service. I can't ask you to restore the image, but it would be appropriate for you to contribute your thoughts concerning the removal to the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you to please revert you revision of Fan service as the article was under FPP when you made that edit.陣内_Jinnai 22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily reverted for procedural reasons; but that image is there on an obvious WP:COATRACK. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File 770, noobs and newspapers

I think File 770 is one of those thing where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I get the feeling that 770 was a bigger deal back when it was printed instead of blog. I realize that there are large elements of the science fiction community which are, to put it mildly, very eager fans. There are many less charitable ways of putting it, as we've seen in what I think may have become The World's Largest, Most Convoluted AfD Debate Ever. And it seems that the sci-fi community in particular and fandom in general has, to a certain extent, set up its own measures on Wikipedia of what is notable and what is not, and those measures don't always seem to be equivalent to those for the rest of the world. Part of this is the ol' systemic bias issue, I'm sure, but you've probably come across my "barbershop quartet test" in the AfD — trust me, it's in there somewhere. (I'm going to put it into an essay here in a few days.) We really do need establish some better policies on what cons and other fandom events are notable and what aren't for our purposes — something like "three or more annual events, 1,000 or more average attendance, featuring at least two special guests who are themselves notable by Wikipedia standards, plus significant coverage from reliable, general-public sources outside the fan genre." It's an effort to weed out events that are only around for a couple of years with low attendance and coverage, or particularly those which are commercially run and little more than memorabilia sales. Your suggestions are greatly appreciated, especially as an admin.

Needless to say, this particular AfD has gone way, way beyond what I ever expected. The off-WP campaigning had a lot to do with that, of course.

I'm the sports editor at The North Jefferson News in Gardendale, a twice-weekly suburban paper. Before that, I did a two-year stint as a prep sports correspondent (technically a part-time job, but pretty darn close to full time except in summer) for The Birmingham News, and before that as managing editor for the short-lived Hoover Gazette. One of my old Birmingham colleagues, Nick Birdsong, is a sports writer for Anniston now. Nick was an intern for us at Birmingham. I got back into the news business almost on a lark when the Hoover paper started, after being out of media for nearly 15 years. It's still fun, but a tough way to make a living these days — I'm actually on furlough this week. Thank goodness for unemployment benefits! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File 770 wins a Hugo in 1984 and in 2008, with 4 in between. As with any "reliable" or "not-reliable" source, you have to examine the individual merits. I'm no longer knowledgeable in the field, but do know enough to say that's good enough for me. I don't really care what actual guideline wording says, I try to never fall into the trap of divining the true meaning of an inscrutable massively-edited oracle. It looks like a good source. But then, as with any good source, you have to look at what it is good for, and if it conveys notability. For instance, a publication or site that aims to provide a comprehensive listing of all events doesn't really convey notability on each listed event, since you pretty much just have to submit your event. That's not the case here, since the File 770 piece is about SheVaCon, a 20-year event, with MystiCon as the splitoff. So does that convey notability? I dunno.

You are right about the desirability of an additional notability guideline in this area, like what we have for professors and porn stars. It seems that usually these additional guidelines are born of controversy, so maybe all this crap is a good thing. The outside influence has been undoubtedly negative here, in terms of how our 'cyclo normally operates. This is one of the more blatant examples, maybe up there with EEML and CAMERA. One part of me says that all us regular editors should get together and say "If you come here from an external site just to argue for retention of a single article, we will speedy delete that article. Is there anything else the external site is asking you to do? We have lots of buttons available to help." Kidding, the AFD itself is a total mess but some of those newbies have clearly made efforts to read up on policy and make neutral judgements, which rather impresses me. A very few might even become regular and respected editors. Franamax (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lemme tell you, it's been a PR nightmare as far as Wikipedia's already weak image in the science fiction community. I've been trying desperately to defend our practices and procedures against a lot of angry and hurt good faith people who don't understand how we work, except that some of the assertions they encounter in AfDs, etc. are so counterfactual as to inspire paranoia and disbelief. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell them that Wikipedia == counterfactual. There's no possible way it can exist in the first place. It is a good SF story, worthy of a Herbert or Heinlein, except they never imagined it. :) Franamax (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Realkyhick wrote: "I get the feeling that 770 was a bigger deal back when it was printed instead of blog." File 770 is still printed and mailed out. The blog is just part of the 'zine.Shsilver (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

98.221.216.42

Did you intend to block this IP indefinitely? Might want to reduce it unless there's a good reason. Goodvac (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's a corporate/fixed IP; but I changed it to one week at your request. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

email

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

-- Rrburke (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Mike: not to be a pest, but did you get a chance to read my email? -- Rrburke (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (

Hello, OM: Just sent an em regarding your editorial commentary on Steven Kunes. Bravo. WilsonBaker (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)WilsonBaker

Admin attention needed at Steven Kunes

Hi, not sure if this is out of scope for ANI, so I am contacting you as an admin who has been involved in editing this page. You may remember that this looks like a puffed up autobiography, with a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced claims about awards and so on. In light of this story from what looks like a credible source, the unsourced or dubious claims in the entry look even more dubious (I have already blanked some of the more easily debunked claims). Should this just go straight to AFD, since there are few well-sourced claims to notability left, or is he now notable as a criminal? I've made plenty of AFD nominations, but none where the discussion has the potential to bump up against libel laws. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like AfD time to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping to pass this one off, but I've gone ahead and nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Kunes. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, OM: Just sent an em regarding your commentary on Steven Kunes -- it may inform you why deletion would be unadvisable at this time. WilsonBaker (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)WilsonBaker

"Pathetically"?

Orangemike, I've got a real concern about a very BITE-y comment you left as an edit summary for a new user here. I think calling anyone "pathetically US centric" is far below the standards of collegiality that this project requires. I'm really disappointed that in a time when we're seeing plummeting numbers of new users, long-time users here are addressing them as "pathetically US centric." Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty, I regretted that one almost as soon as I sent it; but that particular article is plagued by the hundreds of people who rush to "correct" the name of the book to the American title, and it gets very old very fast. (That new editor's specialty, by the way, seems to be minor characters from the U.K. soap opera Emmerdale [so they aren't even Yanks].) I consider myself duly trouted.--Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Earth, Inc."

Nope - I've already G6'ed it as a housekeeping measure. Given that the editor has not touched the project since before the AFD ended, I think this was a safe call. Thanks for bringing this one to my attention. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You do know that Marknutley is indef blocked, right? I think he may not even be able to edit his talk page. Too bad; although I very often disagreed with him I thought he was an interesting fellow. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Had forgotten that. I've got a long-term project to populate the categories for many working-class trades which are grievously neglected: plumbers, gasfitters, housepainters, bookkeepers and the like. (Many of these have become union leaders, socialist legislators, etc.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

hi orangemike. Appreciate where you are coming from but I'm not convinced multiple murderer and conman Frederick deeming should be described as a gasfitter in the Lede. Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is my feeling that ledes should tell us what the subject did for a living, not just what they became most notable for, in order to give a more balanced perspective on who they were. It's key to understanding Samuel Gompers, for example, to know where he came from and how it shaped him as a young cigarmaker working at his bench. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Harold Anthony Oaks

You previously deleted an article on this flying ace due to copyright infringement. I wish to create an entirely original article based on my research and my own writing. If you have any valid reason for insisting on non-replacement of this article, please advise me so at my talk page.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of prior copyright violations certainly should be no bar to the creation of a new article without such violations. I wish you good luck with the new article. If I can help, let me know. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

user Pldms

User:PldmsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Pldms. If in doubt, please verify that "Pldms" exists. Start the User:Pldms page Search for "User:Pldms" in existing pages of namespace User. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

---

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function. Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title. If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.176.114 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, messages go to the bottom of talk pages, just out of courtesy. Second of all - a registered user that hasn't set up their profile page comes up with the above message. Not an unregistered user. Koncorde (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mary G. Enig

On the page Mary G. Enig you reverted then full protected. Wow, that is pretty straight forward not kosher. Also you full protected with no input as to what would be needed to lift it.

Look just in browsing your userpage you seem like an awesome dude. I honestly think you rock. But don't you want to rethink this one? I mean an indefinite full protect on your preferred version seems kind of severe. I would love to fix that article by stripping out all the unsourced praise and whatnot, but I can't while it's locked. Also an indefinite lock goes against the five pillars. Just topic ban those warring or whatever, seems better than a permanently screwed up article to me. By the way did I mention you rock? Colincbn (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right; protection removed. Now let's see if the edit wars resume or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you are epic. Colincbn (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Still I don't expect the warring will die so easy. But I will do my best to keep heads cool. Colincbn (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anomaly Warzone Earth

Just wanted to give you a heads-up - I've done some work on cleaning up the article over the past few days, and both I and others have added citations and made other improvements on it.

It is my belief that the article now has sufficient citations to meet the GNG, and as such, the refimprove and notability templates are no longer necessary.

As you were the person who put the templates in place, though, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could give it a once-over and let me know what you think before I remove the templates from the article.

All the best, Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ponce"

Mike, re your edit summary, yes could be, see this. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Leave it to an ex-pat to catch that one. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC) ("Blinded by the Light")

Speedy deletion declined: Oleg Shafarenko

Hello Orangemike. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Oleg Shafarenko, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin State Legislature

Hi- I hope you are doing well. Sometimes I come across an obituary for an individual who served in the Wisconsin Legislature. Virgil Roberts is a good example. Dismas Becker is another example. About Virgil Roberts, his death was not covered too much in Wisconsin state news even though he served in the Wisconsin Assembly for some years and was prominent in the Democratic Party. As for the science fiction convention in Madison, my youngest nephew will be graduating from high school in May in Iowa and I am not sure how this will work. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was able to start articles for members of the 96th and 97th Wisconsin Legislature that had redlinks. I think there were 15-16 articles. Also I started articles for Isaac and Marcia Coggs. I hope you and your family are doing well-Thanks-RFD (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Resp. Sadads (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request from User:GoNC Network - any objections?

Any objections to an unblock of GoNC Network (talk · contribs) so he can pursue a change of username? He's been trying to discuss the links to his sites on the EL noticeboard, so I'm willing to extend him the courtesy of letting him request an unblock and continue to discuss. It's your block, and not a softerblock, so I wanted to ask before I did it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with it, as long as he understands the terms do not permit him to be spamlinking for his network of sites; the usual, in other words. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I was BOLD and went ahead an unblocked User:GoNC Network, but copied this exchange to his or her talk page first. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Rains article

I was listening to Last.fm and heard a few songs I liked by a band named Rains. I Googled them to find more about the band, and found the deleted Wikipedia page. I don't understand why this page was deleted. A band that has sold 12,000+ CDs and gets played on Last.fm isn't important enough to have a brief article on Wikipedia? It's hard enough to get noticed as an independent artist without people creating arbitrary and unrealistic qualifications for "importance." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkroese (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Selling 12,000 CDs is not much of a claim for notability on a planet of 7 billion people. Our standards for band notability are found at WP:BAND. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Susana Medina

Sigh, meatpuppeting, any more ideas? Naraht (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party

Hey Orangemike, regarding the edits to Bharatiya Janata Party, did I just unwittingly revert the good edits (because you seem to have reverted mine); I apologize for a lapse of concentration on my part! Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. You inadvertently restored some serious NPOV violations, which (regardless of my opinion of the BJP) had no place there. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, had a rough day; desperately in need of sleep. Thanks for restoring the good version. Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Harold Anthony Oaks

This article was previously deleted for copyright violations. I have supplied a new original fully researched article, fully cited and free of copyright vios.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bradley S. Jacobs

Hi - I wrote this article six weeks ago and asked for feedback. Someone moved it - to add punctuation to the name, I think, and it's now been marked as resembling an advert and lacking primary sources.

Of 76 source links, I have cited Reuters, Bloomberg, Forbes, the NYT; only 8 are to a biography on his site - should I remove these? I tried to be balanced, mentioning the SEC enquiry among other things. I would welcome more concrete feedback on how to improve this.

NathanBermann (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC).

You misunderstand: the problem is not a lack of primary sources, but the use of primary sources, such as the company website biography. The "advert" tag is because of things like the use of the term "business magnate" and the sentence about turning $X into $20X over eight years. (The latter sounds like a brag, not like encyclopedic data.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Flindersuni block

Thanks! Your action is possibly overkill, but hey, I'm not going to complain - so far their nett contribution is negative. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

They are pretending to be Flinders Uni; a spamuserblock seemed to me to be the appropriate route to take. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Harmon Leon

Hi, I had deleted this article, but it was reinstated at the subject's request which would seem to go hand in hand with the reason I had proposed it for deletion given that it isn't a notable subject. The fact that it had sat around for five years (which the subject gave as the reason that is should stay) and no one noticed it would also seem to point to its lack of notability. I'm contacting you here as you had left a note mentioning that it needed a great deal of work when in reality, I still stand by the fact that it should be deleted lest it set a bad precedent given how many writers are floating around San Francisco who, while professionals do not meet WP's criteria for notability. Primecoordinator (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point (a challenged PROD), we have to go for a formal AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So what does that mean? Sorry, I've been around for awhile, but don't know every detail and this was the first article I had ever requested for deletion as I usually try to improve them when possible... Primecoordinator (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Joanna Russ

Love that SF Site isn't considered RS by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for Joanna Russ's death notice (although was apparently good enough for her entering hospice), especially since I'm the guy who will be writing her obituary notice for the SFWA site. (and interesting that he's happy to accept Twitter notices about it as RS).Shsilver (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's like losing Tucker; I keep hoping the reports will turn out to have been wrong once again..... --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, no. I'm working on the SFWA obit right now and prior to doing the SF Site notice had confirmation from Amy Thomson, who spoke to the hospice this morning.Shsilver (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, we went through a similar discussion over Diana Wynne Jones just last month, with even more reliable reports involved, and the discussion then led to us pushing the envelope a bit and getting carefully phrased reports into the article before an RS-announcement. SF Site is a self-published source for WP:BLP purposes, and therefore can't be used to establish death of a recently living person. There was a similar issue over the death of Freddie Hubbard, whose death was first reported by an extremely reputable jazz journalist on his own site/blog. Note that even the just-published Locus report is hedged, so we still don't have quite enough. FWIW, I can recall similar reports of the death of June Carter Cash, circulated by people who knew the Cash family, that turned out to be premature (if only by a matter of days). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of Kurt-the-parrot-hamster

Hello Orangemike. Kurt-the-parrot-hamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  20:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

hello

Thanks for adding your greetings on my page and for helping with the effort to document public art in Wikipedia. I'm glad to know you are there at UWM. I gave a presentation on campus on Friday to try to get more people into editing Wikipedia. We'll see how many get on board! Jgmikulay (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

egmont group publishing

Hey Orangemike

I can see that you changed the title of the Egmont (media group) to Egmont Group (publishing) it is my opinion that this title is misleading, since only part of Egmont involves publishing, therefore I recommend that the article is called Egmont media group.

What does it take to make this change?

BR. --Pbrun (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Publishing" nowadays covers not only books and magazines, but other forms of mass media as well. Egmont was originally a print publisher, and is still best-known in that industry. I'd rather have simply used "Egmont Group" by itself, but that was already occupied. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Steve Doyle

I started an article Steve Doyle (Wisconsin politician). Any comments? Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help-with the Roberts, Clements, and Doyle articles. I did notice the Wisconsin Legislature district numbering system: sometime during the 1980s with reapportionment, the legislature must had reorganized the numbering system; Doyle, Roberts, and Clements were from the La Crosse County area-Mary Lou Munts was not from th area- she was from Madison. Munts took retirement in 1984 and that was when the redistrict probably took effect. Mary Lou Munts is an interesting person-she moved to Pennsylvania a few years ago in 2006 from Madison. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I started short articles about David Craig (Wisconsin politician) and Duey Stroebel who were elected to the Wisconsin Assembly this week. They will need more detail. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for T R

An editor has asked for a deletion review of T R. 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. Jokestress (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Response on Appeal

You, along with a few other moderators, removed links that I had added under External Links. These links were created without an account, via IP 76.6.2.0.

I have been asking for this to be reconsidered under the Noticeboard, and have cited numerous reasons, but the only moderator to reply has been Ruhrfisch. He suggested that I contact the other moderators involved.

Here is a direct link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#GoAlleghany.com

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Jason W. Carlton (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

William O'Donnell

Hi Many thanks for helping out with the articles about Wisconsin legislators. I started an article on William O'Donnell (Wisconsin politician)-he was the second Milwaukee County Executive. Is is possible to try to expand the article. You probably have access to information in Milwaukee. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Knappe

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Edwin Knappe, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://empireoftitans.com/?p=1.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bands

Hi Mike. I was impressed with your short and poignant statement: Is "emerging" the latest euphemism for "up and coming"? Because, with all due respect, subjects need to have already become notable before they get articles here. Garage bands, rappers, and 'mixer' DJs are defaulting to 'keep' at AfD per no consensus, due to their being so notable and popular that no one even bothers to !vote despite often multiple relistings. As these clearly non enclopedia-worthy subjects account for about 50% of new pages and are 'overlooked' by patrollers, your input at AfD would be greatly appreciated if you are not already following Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Undelete Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World

I see that you deleted the wikipedia page for the Joukowsky Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joukowsky_Institute_for_Archaeology_and_the_Ancient_World ). I'd like to request that you re-instate it, if that is possible.

It seems that the page was deleted because its significance was not stated. The Institute is one of the top resources for archaeology in the US. We offer:

- a graduate program (see the Archaeological Institute of America's description here: http://www.archaeological.org/fieldnotes/resources/799 or a link on Peterson's graduate schools here: http://www.petersons.com/graduate-schools/brown-university-joukowsky-institute-for-archaeology-and-the-ancient-world-programs-and-degrees-000_10046980_10102.aspx)

- an undergraduate concentration (aka major)

- sponsor archaeological fieldwork all over the world (Petra, Jordan, is especially well known)

- multiple international conferences and symposia (e.g., http://rogueclassicism.com/2011/03/16/conf-the-archaeology-of-italy-state-of-the-field-2011)

- and we now have a publication series (http://www.oxbowbooks.com/trade.cfm/Publisher/Joukowsky%20Institute%20for%20Archaeology%20and%20the%20Ancient%20World%2C%20Brown%20University/FullList/Yes).

Our building is also one of the major renovation projects at Brown University in the past few years (see http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/Building_Brown/projects/rihall/ ).

We've been featured in the New York Times several times (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/opinion/21iht-edwhitmore.html?scp=1&sq=joukowsky%20institute&st=cse ), as well as other top newspapers and magazines.

I would be grateful if you could restore the page. More information on the Institute can be found at http://brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute.

Thanks for your help.

Atalantaruns (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but your language makes it pretty clear you've got a severe conflict of interest going here. Follow the link to see some information on how to handle that problem. As to the rest: I'd advise you to create a new draft in a sandbox in your userspace. Just click this link: User:Atalantaruns/Sandbox; do a bit of editing; and save it. Then continue until you think you've got something fit for a published article. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. Right, I definitely am not objective. But that's why I've included the links to other verifiable sources, in the hopes that you might undelete the original page. I guess I'll have to just start from scratch in the sandbox, and hope that the new version I create will demonstrate the Institute's significance. Thanks for your help. Atalantaruns (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocean Beach Public Policy

Hello, Can you please re-evaluate you AfD nomination here? This article is being developed as part of an important outreach effort by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia Ambassadors Program, which is working to develop public policy articles in cooperation with universities across the country. These articles are being developed by students new to Wikipedia, and I believe that it would be best for the encyclopedia to give these articles some time to develop. I am a volunteer with the Wikipedia Ambassador project. Thank you for your consideration. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of and support the idea behind the Public Policy project; but the subject matter is, I fear, too narrow - and this article is an example of the unfortunate side effects of that narrow focus. We have an article which constitutes undue emphasis on a minor aspect of a neighborhood of a single city; I believe there is simply too much there, a lot of it original research and synthesis; and what there is, belongs in the main Ocean Beach article. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Please be aware that Ocean Beach is a component part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which is administered by the National Park Service. At the same time, it is part of the City and County of San Francisco, which is the most densely populated urban area in the United States other than Manhattan. The issues pertaining to environmental protection in such an urban/parkland interface are very real and quite notable. I fail to see how this article relies on the sort of fringe sources described in WP:UNDUE that you linked to above. I hope that the students working on this article will be able to convince you (and other editors) that this topic meets our notability standards. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with fringe sources, at least in this context. It has to do with excessive emphasis on one particular aspect of a subject (in this case, the public policy issues) at the expense of the rest of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No Not here

I have agreement with Jim Wales for permission stamp of Belaurus government approved. 'Step Away' and let me confront my work. Heavy regards, --Shuvuhikovsky (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Aidin Afkhami

what kind of information is needed? we live in iran and people here don't use internet that much. i don't have any other sources. what can i do? MSF (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What is needed is references showing that the subject is noted in his profession: coverage in film magazines and books, newspapers articles discussing his work, and the like. See the articles on more notable Iranian film people for the kinds of sources we are seeking. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Aidin Afkhami

is any of these reliable? please if possible go easy on me, my hands are really tied here. http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1176742 http://www.100fest.ir/fa/sentFilm/?pgroup=1&page=4&SortType=down&SortBy=Priority http://www.sourehcinema.com/People/People.aspx?Id=138112060074 http://www.cinetmag.com/ShowNews.asp?ID=4417MSF (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The first doesn't even mention Afkhami at all; the second looks like a mere listing of names; I can't access the third; and the fourth is in Farsi, which (alas) I cannot read. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at a Google translation of the fourth source, and it barely mentions Aidin Afkhami. The third one, which I have been able to access, tells us that he is an actor, and gives the titles of two films he has been in: that is all. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your assistance. At this point everything I've done has provoked a somewhat hostile reaction, so I'm trying to tread carefully, so I am tempted to just leave the galleries and promotional pictures up there, as I have better things to do than anger someone over something like that... but if you don't mind, can you take a look and maybe tell me if I'm missing something and have inaccurately described the situation? Most of my interest in wikipedia has been in creating articles for things that aren't here, and putting up pictures of people/things that are not yet pictured - I think this is the first time I got into a conflict over one. PermanentVacay (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

PS you can reply here. PermanentVacay (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please undelete .22_Eargesplitten Loudenboomer

I see that you deleted .22_Eargesplitten Loudenboomer as a blatant hoax. I can understand why it would look like a hoax, but it is not. Information and loading data for this cartridge was published in "Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders Volume II". The book is available from Amazon. A page with information and a couple scanned images from the book is available here: http://www.gswagner.com/bigreloading/refmaterial/ackley.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwilson (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you create a new article, this time with actual sources and references (something the original lacked) in a sandbox. I'll be glad to help. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

--Orange Mike | Talk 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Or you could restire the article and let people fill in the information properly based on work already done and verifying the research, as opposed to simply deleting something as a so called "blatant hoax" without any research done yourself (or you would have easily found alot of discussion on it in firearms circles). Copies of guns and ammo magazine from the 1960s and old reloading manuals are not particularly easy to come by to create a complete article from scratch. No offense, but simply deleting something as a "blatant hoax" without checking yourself if something could possibly exist speaks ill of your so called standards, when you could have argued for deletion on other grounds such as unverified claims or other such causes. I would suggest making a quick search on a topic at the very least in the future before such future deletions to avoid things such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.140.176 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You have an excellent point, and one I will keep in mind. I wish Dean Grennell had been around for me to check with at the time. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I should note that I 'm not the anonymous user above. If I come across good sources or find the exact citation from the original manual, I'll add it to the article. I remember my parents talking about this round when they were first teaching me about handloading. Zwilson (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Gonzalez

Hey Mike! Thanks for your note on Bobby Gonzalez. Since you mention a big fuss in the press, do you have any links to articles in the press about this campaign by his sister? It would be a big help to move this forward. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Lindag3333! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm familiar with what's there, as I've tried to encourage Linda to give links to any press coverage that gives more balanced information than the opinion pieces in the New York Times, which is mostly what the article has been based on previously. However, of the material most recently posted on her userpage, one item is a months old statement issued by Bobby's former employer (and thus not independent even though it does demonstrate that their public position regarding him has changed) and the other is also in the same timeframe (and thus doesn't cover any of the events whose description is at issue). If there has been a big fuss in the press recently, that's what would be valuable for helping to balance the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

She's trying to create a fuss, which is a different thing entirely. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's a bit closer to my understanding of the situation. Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted?

Is this image copyrighted? File:West Bengal Election 2011.svg? GaneshBhakt (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a copyright violation; it is a derivative work from a published map on a newspaper website. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you tag the image as copyrighted? Because someone seems to have given an "explanation" at the talk page of the file. GaneshBhakt (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

They can't seem to understand that derivative works are copyright violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the link to the newspaper was to source the data, not the map itself; the language was so telegraphic that I mis-understood. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections

Congratulations Orangemike, you have been invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections as a result of your outstanding contributions to U.S. presidential election articles. Please add your name to this list to join.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rand School of Social Science

Hi, friend. I see you placed a POV flag on Rand School of Social Science. Please state your specific objections on that article's talk page so that they may be addressed. From your edit summary I gather that you don't like the fact that Gannon's book was used and thus, I suppose, there is some sort of right wing John Bircher bias to the piece, which is a bit comical to me since I'm the one that mined that source and it's something I've never been accused of. I'm just guessing, please provide specifics. A tag for more sources is appropriate, that particular tag is not, in my estimation. I'll pull it down now, don't feel bad about reverting me if you actually have POV concerns about the piece — just put it back up and spell them out on the talk page and we'll see about fixing them to your satisfaction. Best regards, — Tim Carrite (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Democratic Party

I would think a user as active as you would know this, but social liberalism and progressivism, the two main ideologies of the Democratic Party, are considered centre-left (which means one of two things - 'between the center and the left' or 'the left of a centrist position' BTW). I understand you are a leftist, but the center-left excludes far-left and left-wing stances, meaning the Dems are very center-left, along with social democrats. :) Toa Nidhiki05 16:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Democratic Party (there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" in the United States) has social liberal and progressive factions; but it also has social conservative and reactionary factions. The center of balance of the party as a whole is nowhere near center-left on a global standard; and this is a global project. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. As an aside, it always rather amuses me (or at least it would if it would if it were not so ridiculous) when Obama is described as a "socialist". On a world view he is barely left of center. Having lived in the UK under socialist governments (including union leaders being invited to No. 10 for beer and sandwiches - not a bad thing I hasten to add), I can tell you that Obama is no socialist. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. It merely accurately describes the situation in context, and I completely fail to see how it could be interpreted as reinforcing that pretense. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Zero Energy Design

Mike, would you SALT this please, just to be sure? Zero energy design has already been SALTED. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE help me improve my article and reenter a corrected version

The simplified article I created at Zero Energy Design removed almost all of the Zero energy design text - It only had four lines of text.

I am honestly and sincerely trying to find a mature helpful respected editor to make specific suggestions to make it better.

The following version deletes the ZeroEnergyDesign.com website reference and only uses the reference from the U.S. DOE and ORNL government website.

Zero Energy Design is a Holistic System Integration Engineering Process developed in 1979. The work has been supported by the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and the U.S. Department of Energy for over thirty years.

How can editors complain about a reference to work funded by U.S. government agencies? How is that an advert ? ? ?

PLEASE BE SPECIFIC - How can I make it better ? - I AM trying hard to learn how to to accomodate the Wikipedia rules

I ask for your guidance - something other than vague tags and speedy deletions without explanation.

Escientist (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a long history of this topic being aggressively advertised in prior articles, which have been deleted and blocked from recreation as a result. I would suggest that you create a draft article (with solid sourcing to multiple reliable sources) in a sandbox in your userspace; you can use this one: User:Escientist/sandbox by clicking on it, doing some preliminary edits, and clicking on "Save page"). Note that citations need to list a page number; a "citation" that just names a book-length document is not helpful. Also: inappropriate capitalizations make an article look more advertising-like. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fanfiction article.

Dreaded Walrus, a wiki user and admin wants myself to tell you. Fanfiction category is fictional itself. Are you jealous of me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.221.43 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mr.Gaebrial

Hey Mike, You deleated the account Mr.Gaebrial for being an add, thats why I was working on it in the first place, the IDV page was flagged for being an add and I was working to make it more neutral. I did not put it in the main wiki because it was not done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Gaebrial (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Bidisha

About a year ago you semi-protected the article on the British journalist Bidisha, giving the rationale 'Edit warring / Content dispute'. It seems to me that the article doesn't appear to have been particularly controversial over the last few months, and that it might be time to unprotect it. (Apologies if I should have made this request somewhere else.) NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use pending changes anymore as per consensus found at WP:PCRFC. Cenarium (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger; wilco. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep on, but the page is still semi-protected. If pending changes isn't being used anymore, can we not just leave the article completely unprotected? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, bro.  :)

As always, my eternal thanks for the assist on my talk page. I swear, this site can't function without you. Really.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

Hey... I don't want to get into a nasty argument - as disagreements sometimes do - but seriously, are you telling me *with a straight face* that "In Popular Culture" is not simply a euphemism for... get ready... TRIVIA? Seriously, the content in virtually all Wikipedia "In Popular Culture" sections is indistinguishable from... get ready... TRIVIA. Indeed, most people accept that "In Popular Culture" is simply a work-around to include trivia without calling it trivia. There is a word to describe this nonsense: Disingenuous. Well, maybe that's a bit strong, but none the less, "In Popular Culture" == trivia. I think if you honestly reflect on the question, you will see that this is so. Nine out of ten dentists agree, so I must be right. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ian Jobling

Hello. Back in 2008, you proposed this article for deletion as non-notable; the prod was contested on the talk page, but having just found the article I agree that he is non-notable and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Jobling. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Intensity of preference

In the context your comments here created, please consider expanding your perspective slightly.

Your ability to distill experience into a plausible hypothesis is a good first step. Sharing your impressions about lessons learned the hard way is an arguably useful next step. Specific actions which mitigate are obvious temporary bandaids, but then what?

Our project struggles with figuring out how collaborative editing can more effectively respond to a pernicious problem which recurs across a range of unrelated articles.

In general, the Intensity of preference concept is arguably descriptive of highly motivated contributors whose strategic participation is non-collaborative. This encompasses a wider cohort than those whose work is labeled vandalism or edit warring.

A slightly enlarged vocabulary is a kind of tool. A new tool suggests a very slightly modified perspective.

Would it be useful for me to try to explain this again in different words? --Tenmei (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue with your statements, but I fail to grasp their utility here and now. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the practical application is beyond my grasp as well. At this point, I am only suggesting that this term may offer something potentially useful.

In our wiki-context, intensity of preference is an unexamined factor which may, in due course, suggest new ways of parsing our ways of understanding and addressing problems like vandalism or edit warring.

I only noticed your edit summary because WP:Help Desk is watch-listed. Your words caught my attention. Your word caused a very small Aha! effect. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Durn straight it is...

Dogggone it, not only is he self-promoting himself, he's sharing the account. Care to lower the boom or shall I?  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd better do it; you've made it clear that you're genuinely trying to help, whereas I might come across as a hostile stranger. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Filipovic

you are refering to ING.E. Filipovic Co.......i changed it to User:ErwinFilipovic/Ing.E. Filipovic Co. but who may put the Article in if not somebody who knows the corporation? (O.K not me, of course) Thank youErwinFilipovic (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles ideally should be written by impartial third parties, based solely (as always) on verifiable information from reliable sources. That means somebody who has read press reports and other articles about this company, and feels it is notable enough to have an article about it in an encyclopedia. Frankly, I see nothing to indicate anything of the sort about your little firm; but of course I may be mistaken. As it is, we don't have articles on many typical corporations like Schweitzer-Mauduit International, for example: listed on the NYSE and with a revenue of almost a billion dollars a year! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but it is not standing i may not do it or?, i thought under User everything is fine, now its not?, are you sure about this...about that is looking like an Article, i thought i need to use it as a standart of Wikipedia

Thank you ErwinFilipovic (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No: userpages are much more individualistic; read Wikipedia:User pages. One thing you should not do with one, is to make it look like a fake Wikipedia article about yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

== i just was on your User page....Mike take it little easy on me, tell me the info will be nearly the same at the end only my one looks like an Article ( i thought thats standart ), but the status is OK or not? Bye bye Mike ==ErwinFilipovic (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

None of the content is particularly objectionable, Drug Filipovic; just don't use infoboxes or other formatting features which belong to actual articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well now

How about that? -- Rrburke (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I know; sweet, ain'a? Papers can be filed for the recall of Scott Walker after January 3rd of 2012. Recall papers can begin circulating November 3rd, 2011. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So a petition with a number of signatures equal to 25% of those who voted in the most recent governor's race is needed to trigger a recall election? -- Rrburke (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thought this might interest you and this might amuse you. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Carrie Savage, voice actress

Re. Carrie Savage, voice actress (talk · contribs)

Where was the 'legal threat'? Has it been revdel'd?  Chzz  ►  00:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

On the Help desk: "I need this info. removed immediately, or I believe I may have grounds for a legal law suit!" --Orange Mike | Talk 00:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted; fair enough.

I've emailed the user; if it is indeed the subject, I think this is a typical case of WP:BLPEDIT. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carrie_Savage.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of Forgottenbooks (talk · contribs) summarily overturned

I would like to preface the following remarks by emphasizing that I generally feel you are one of the more level headed admins around here and most of your anti-spam work is in keeping with both policy and common sense.

Unfortunately the way this block was handled does not seem to be in keeping with that pattern. With this edit [11] you simultaneously added three warnings and a block notice. If you check the page history you will see that this caused some confusion among reviewing admins, FisherQueen (talk · contribs) declined an unblock, pointing out the repeated warnings, and then reverted herself altogether [12] after apparently noticing the timestamps just as I eventually did. I'm not suggesting this was any kind of deliberate act of bad faith, but it certainly wasn't helpful to the blocked user or reviewing admins. In light of these unusual circumstances I have unblocked this user without consulting you as blocking admin first. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't overturn you; but this was such a clear case of spamming (created; deleted; recreated under a slightly different name) that I put the "warnings" up mostly for the value of the links included therein. Still, I will take your cautions to heart in the future; and I hope the unblock is not read by this user as a license to re-spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Social Democrats, USA

Hi again, Mike!

Take a look at the revised article.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have grossly padded it and turned it into a WP:COATRACK for praise of certain founding members, along with decorating it with un-needed and irrelevant illustrations and sidebar "as you know" sections that should be hacked back to mere wikilinks to the relevant topics; apparently (I may be wrong here) in an effort to get some kind of extra attention (DYK or the like). I will add bluntly that it appears to me to be desperately striving to see only the SDUSA side of the arguments of the era; and admit also that I was and am on the opposite side of most of these disagreements. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike!

Rustin was the chairperson of SDUSA, so a description of his politics seems essential, and "From Protest to Politics" is of course the standard reference. If you question anything, let me know, and I'll provide additional references.

There are primary-source materials that state that SDUSA converted its office into helping with the Solidarity-support campaign, which I have not included because of reliability and secondary-source policies. I don't know whether secondary reliable sources exist that document a greater involvement of the organization. Discussing the documented activities of SDUSA members like Kahn seems reasonable, given the lack of reliable/secondary documentation of other activities.

I don't understand what "opposite side" or "these disagreements" you refer to. Would you enlightenment me?

I did provide links to the old SP and to DSOC, whose articles describe an oral tradition at odds with the NYT. I suggested that another editor consult Isserman's biography of Harrington, for a secondary source, which is unavailable to me. (I assume that Harrington's biographies are honest but may suffer from POV.)

The main problem with previous articles on the old SP is the reduction of SDUSA to "Shachtmanites", which is bizarre, given Rustin and Kemble as obvious counter-examples (or Harrington, Denitch, Howe, or J.L. ...).

Of course, another BLP problem is the pigeonholing of SDUSA as "fierce anticommunists", which is repeated throughout WP, by familiar editors, and a total neglect of the work on civil rights by those members. This is undue weight.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I quote your appraisal of two other parts of an "opposite side":

DSA is not a political party (and not a really large political group). The Socialist Party USA is the best-known social democratic party in the United States, but is no longer a major party. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You, Sir, are a master of understatement!

(However, despite their bullion-cube size, SDUSA and DSA, and not the SP, are the players of interest to the Swedish SAP and other SI parties.)

We do think kindly of Bernie Sanders when purchasing Ben & Jerry's, however.

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

About: the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

Hi, after a long (more than two years) process of dispute resolution, including extensive talk page discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Discussion_of_criteria), a request for comment and an informal mediation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List_of_sovereign_states) eleven participants have agreed to a version of the page presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danlaycock/List_of_sovereign_states/Sandbox3i2f. Two users oppose the consensus held by the other eleven participants, claiming that no such consensus exists. One of these users in particular has been stonewalling for weeks any attempts to change the page to the version approved by the majority, and the situation is degenerating into edit warring over versions of the page. It was suggested to us that an outside admin can step in and give an opinion on whether a consensus has been achieved or not. Can you help? It's important to note that we're not opposing a continuing process of dispute resolution. What is happening in this case, however, a specific user has been going against the spirit of the consensus-building process by refusing the majority's right to implement changes to the page until he's satisfied with the result. Ladril (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Another admin has stopped by and intervened. Your participation is not needed anymore but thanks. Ladril (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright

Just a curious question about this topic - if they own the photograph, don't they also own the copyright for it? Unless they subsequently give it up, by putting it in the public domain? Not my area of expertise I admit, but as I read that sentence, you're saying that even though he owns the photo, he doesn't own a copyright of it? a_man_alone (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not!!!! Copyright remains with the creator of a work, with the rare exception of a true work for hire. If I buy an item, I do not acquire any copyright therein unless the creator of the work, be it a photograph or a short story manuscript or a painting or a sculpture, explicitly sells me the rights as well. Otherwise, all I own is the physical object itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Note

Please watch for an e-mail from me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Megan Henwood wiki page

Dear Mike

Thank you for your comments and observations regarding my considerable updating of in the last week or so of the Megan Henwood wiki page. I wish to remain totally respectful of Wikipedia guidelines and only wished to make corrections where I believe there were errors in punctuation or fact. I hope the page will now provide a framework for improvement by other contributors. I promise to try not to mess with it in future :)

Thanks again,

Riverman48 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexanderwolfe Wiki Page

Hi Mike

This is with regard to your comment on deleting the Alexanderwolfe wiki page. I am Alex's manager and we created this page together taking information and photos only from his approved source. Could you please tell me why this page has been considered for deletion. I have added in some references today along with links to provide proof of him as a releasing recording artist, and not of questionable notability. Bang Management Alexanderwolfe (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexanderwolfe (talk • contribs) 10:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Joel Rosenberg's death

I've posted Joel's obit on SF Site based on word from Felicia, his wife. I've also sent information to Locus and other sites that Wikipedians consider reliable. I'm currently trying to work on an obit for SFWA. Shsilver (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:BBCForum

Hi Orangemike, I see you blocked this user for username problems (and the side order of spam); were you aware of the AN/I discussion with them? I think they are a good faith editor who could provide helpful materuial to WP and as you see they have undertaken to restrict themselves to talk pages only and not to post links in articles direct. They were notified about their username but haven't really had much chance to request a name change - do you think it would be reasonable to unblock them so they can request a change, and then all their contributions could be seen together? They could of course just open a new account but it might be more appropriate for a name change to go through? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

An unblock to request username change is certainly in order. I've got to be on the floor of my union's convention in about ten minutes, so I don't have time right now. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I'll post on their talk page to advise them what to do. I'll unblock them myself having discussed it with you, but ask them to register a username change request before making any other edits. All the best, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oriental Theatre "currentuse" parameter

Hi Mike,

Sorry about any confusion with the infobox for the Oriental Theatre (Milwaukee) that I created yesterday... in my original edit with the infobox, I included the currentuse parameter, but then later realized that the template specifications say that it's only for when it's not used for a theatre anymore. I did consider the fact that the Oriental is a movie theatre, rather than a performance theatre, and maybe should have the parameter after all. But I decided against it because it could give the impression that the Oriental was used as a performance theatre in the past at some point, which it never was.

I hope that clears up my rationale, and let me know if you have any other thoughts on it.

Thanks! --Shadowlink1014 (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PROD for iPad accessories

Why wasn't I notified of this? I think failing to notify the author is really rather poor... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that that template automatically notified the author; my apologies. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Pasch article response

If you feel that the votes which I have added to Democratic state rep. Sandy Pasch's article add undue weight to make Pasch appear in too favorable of a light you are free to add votes which you feel may be less popular. The votes which I added were selected because they are more notable and have received a greater level of press coverage than other votes that I did not include.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but my response stays the same. The votes that were added are notable, and if you feel that there are other votes that she has taken that are either more or less popular that are worthy of inclusion, you are free to add them yourself.--Tdl1060 ([[--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:30, 6 June --Tdl1060 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)2011 (UTC)User talk:Tdl1060|talk]]) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Such lists are not customary content for state legislator articles, due to the temptation to pick and choose among votes to fit an agenda. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not customary content? Numerous articles of legislators including some state legislators list notable votes and positions that they have taken. And secondly, unless a policy or guideline exists that you can point to, wouldn't your argument be merely a deletionist version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added secondary non partisan sources from notable, respected newspapers and TV stations to illustrate the notability of the votes that are included and to remove any problems which may arise from reliance on primary sources. Hopefully this will clear up any remaining objections. --Tdl1060 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your own statement undermines your claim that my edits are made with the intent of influencing the election, as there are no farmers who would live in Pasch's district, and very very few farmers in Alberta Darling's district. There are certainly not enough farmers in the 8th district to make any difference in this election. However I have provided a reference (and could provide more if need be) to show the issue regarding the legality of raw milk has emerged as an issue both nationally and in Wisconsin in particular due to its status as a dairy farming state. Maybe the way that a Wisconsin lawmaker voted on the legality of raw milk may be trivial on a global basis, but the legality of raw milk is not only being debated in Wisconsin [13]. Secondly; you have raised the issue of other edits to articles related to Wisconsin politics. Yet aside from Sandy Pasch and Jennifer Shilling, what edits have you found objectionable, to support your claim that I have demonstrated a "pattern of extremely selective editing"?--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Juan José Güemes

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Juan José Güemes. 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, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Block on User:Daviddaltonagency

I was looking at User:Daviddaltonagency's request to be unblocked in order to request a name change. I notice that this user name has been in use (sporadically) for 4 1/2 years. I also haven't found any obvious CoI. Is there something I'm not seeing here? -- Donald Albury 11:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a company name, and thus forbidden under our rules. I certainly don't object to his being unblocked for a change of username. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he has to change it. I probably would have warned him before I blocked. -- Donald Albury 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion myself, and said so. A "softerblock" would have been the better route to go. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The block was within your discretion. I've been sorely tempted at times to block someone for a less clearcut reason. :) -- Donald Albury 11:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I really, really like and admire you

Not only do you seem to be completely neutral (i.e. see fair and balanced), but you are smart. WE NEED MORE PEOPEL IKE YOU IN THE WORLD GOD BLESS U AND GOD BLESS AMERICA (THINK THAT WHERE UR FROM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puglover123 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Zack Heart

Thank you for updating Heart's page.... if the page stays around at all. A few of the changes I didn't know what to do and looks like I missed some big ones. Could you do me one huge favor. Could you look over the talk pages and tell me where I screwed up, what I should do better next time or any other comments. I'd like to a much better job the next time something like this happens.

Here is where I advised them about COI. I left messages on User talk:Krystic1 and Heart's Talk:Zack Heart page Bgwhite (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you, Orange Mike, for your support in lifting my blocking. Your comment acknowledged the personal concern I felt, for which I am grateful. My name change is in progress. Daviddaltonagency (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My article isn't autobiographical!

Hi Orange Mike. You have just flagged my article for being autobiographical (Rimma Sushanskaya) As much as I would like to be Rimma Sushanskaya I am not! I am Ruth. Perhaps you have jumped to conclusions a little too quickly although my username perhaps suggests it. What do I need to do to get this article live - I am new and need help and encouragement!?

Thanks, Ruth Rimma2011 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I already moved the article as you requested, to Rimma Sushanskaya. It will probably be deleted, though, as it is a shamelessly promotional piece. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for moving it. If it is likely to be deleted don't you think you could give me some advice about why you think it is a 'shamelessly promotional piece'? Do I need more references in it? Does it need a bit of bad news in it? Do I need to remove parts of it? This is the most unhelpful posting I have every recieved - my article is about an internationally acclaimed and well respected violinist and if it isn't writen correctly I would prefer it if it was deleted.

Rimma2011 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It has already been deleted. Press-agent language like "one of the leading violinists of her generation. As the last student and protégée of the legendary David Oistrakh, she continues the great Russian string-playing tradition. Her wide array of opulent tone colours, her gripping expressive virtuosity, and her ever-present rhythmic vitality have won audience ovations and critical plaudits in three continents" has no place in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you... Pleased you can act so quickly to delete peopls work - another acolade! Rimma2011 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your best bet is to create a new draft article in your userspace, concentrating on the verifable facts about the subject and not the peacock words. I'll be glad to help. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

modeling agencies

hello you deletd two times apage i created i plan to create pages for some of the modeling agencies missing i created a draft at the following address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikilawrenceolivier/City_models if you have any comment please feel free to make them and voide delting other people work , it s easier to comment or amend your suggestions are welcome as i checked several other pages and defenitely most model agencies pages are all the same thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilawrenceolivier (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Think help not kicks

Orange Mike. I am astounded that you can make such swift judgements, come to a very wrong conclusion so quickly and delete without giving help and advice asked for at the start of the process. I quite innocently wrote an article and there was no helpful advice about what I was doing so wrong - until it was deleted. I am very happy to accept reasoned criticism - but that obviously isn't your style. I will write this article again and I will remove the 'press-agent language' which has been the only helpful comment you have made. I know you are very proud of your reputation for speedy deletions Mike - but sometimes a little consideration wouldn't go amiss for new authors.' Rimma2011 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rimma2011, you need to lose the attitude. Orangemike hasn't done anything wrong, and your snarky, sarcastic comments are not welcome here. He's kindly offered to help you, so either accept his help or move on to something else. — Satori Son 14:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done some things to help her since she posted this note, so (while I appreciate the defense) I think we're good now. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply at my Talk page

I've replied to your templated comment at my Talk page -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(@ Orange Mike) Hi Orange Mike. Avanu re-added the content to the article talk page prior to my commenting at Chaser's talk page. Since you are an uninvolved editor, I wondered if you might take the step to remove it. Gacurr (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And Chaser re-removed it. Seems that none of you are actually big on communicating the specific details of the actual problem here, despite my efforts to ask you to open up. I realize that a joke isn't strictly on-topic for a Talk page, but my goodness, all the ire for a silly thing such as this baffles me. Do we ever stop to laugh at ourselves or at anything here in Wikipedia or must it always be the most strict seriousness? -- Avanu (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a time long ago when I heard Tony say, "Why are you wasting time on this?" I learned something very important from that. Gacurr (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the pointed and implied-agenda-pushing comments we sometimes see in Talk pages, I would hope it isn't a waste of time to release the tension and laugh once in a while and remember that other editors are people too, not just editing robots. -- Avanu (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, read WP:FORUM, read the top of the talk page. This is not a social club. You are free to laugh in your own space. Placing inappropriate content on article talk page is against the rules. You know this. Yet you insist on being disruptive and re-adding the content anyway. Tony's advice is gold. We should not be wasting time on this. Gacurr (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lighten up. My goodness, its been removed and you're still quoting policy and acting like a robot. -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your clarification and assistance on Cutter Aviation deletion

Thank you for providing me direct links to the policies on conflict of interest at Wikipedia and how it applied to the deletion of the article for Cutter Aviation. I now agree with the speedy deletion on these grounds and appreciate your assistance to educate me as I make future contributions to Wikipedia. I appreciate your ongoing efforts to maintain quality standards on Wikipedia. --Avolareaz (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Hello Orange Mike, I noticed your remark about your 30th wedding anniversary and wanted to offer my warm regards. My wife and I will celebrate the same event on September 6. I hope that the two of you have a wonderful day, and a wonderful future together. Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My congratulations also to your wife and yourself on your 30th wedding anniversary!RFD (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Message about external links

I received this message below but don't understand how to address it:

"As per Wikipedia's policy on external links, I don't think adding links to search results pages on DigitalNC.org is recommended. I've removed this link from the Davidson College page, but it looks like you've added such links to many pages on Wikipedia. Npdoty (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)"

I have not violated any policies by inserting internal links for DigitalNC.org. I do not want to risk either myself or the organization wrongfully being blocked from Wikipedia.Emjohns (talk)Emjohns

1. Your phrasing (e.g., "View Davidson College student yearbooks on DigitalNC.org") is exactly the kind of phrasing used by spammers, with a promotional tone.

2. You seem to be doing nothing in Wikipedia except adding links to DigitalNC, which suggests that you are trying to raise the online profile of that website.

3. The tone of some of your talkpage remarks seems strongly to suggest that you work for DigitalNC in some capacity, and thus have a conflict of interest in doing these edits.

4. Those are external links, not internal links; internal links are bluelinks referring the reader to other articles and pages within Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Karl 334

I think you blocked Karl 334 (talk · contribs) by mistake. Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Edw987/Ciaccio Transform

This is about a mathematical transform we created that is now in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I am writing about it as the one who understands it. Supposing you prefer that we wait and see if it eventually gets written up by someone not associated with our group to prevent conflict of interest. If so can you delete said pages in my workspace and the images Spec0ec.jpg and Spec1ec.jpg. Thank you kindly. Edw987 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done so at your request; but I hope this does not discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia in other ways. Me, I couldn't tell an infinitely-differential Riemannian manifold from an exhaust manifold; we need subject-matter specialists like you here! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Deletion of OrangeMike Page under ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)

Unless you can provide me proof within one day that you have the rights to the content in question. Note that this is more time and warning than you gave me bucko. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? Precisely what content is a copyright violation, and where is it copied from? The two articles which you were notified of as being copyright violations included the source where the copyrighted text could be found. If you have a genuine copyright violation, you need to give the source - it is your job to prove the violation, not OrangeMike's to disprove it. For legal reasons, copyright material isn't allowed on Wikipedia, which is why those 2 articles were deleted. Any copyright violation can be deleted immediately by an admin with no warning for this reason. As I am on my mobile, I am not logged I'm as my main account which has admin rights, so I can't see your deleted contributions, but if an article you had created was deleted as a copyright violation and you weren't notified, then apologies on behalf of OrangeMike - we're all human, and sometimes things get forgotten! Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess UrbanTerrorist is referring to deleted Laywers in Hell? Which was clear G12 deletion candidate, text identical to this. There's nothing G12-able about Orangemike's user page so any threats to attempt to get it deleted are idle. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct, there isn't. I was trying to make a point. There wasn't any copyright infringing material on the page that OrangeMike so carelessly deleted. I had the requisite permissions from all of the copyright owners to use the content I used. In fact if you do a whois on the website of Janet Morris you will notice that the website is in my name (Wayne Borean). OrangeMike did not perform his duties according to the rules. I spent a fair bit of time working on that page, and due to his carelessness my time has now been wasted. If he had followed through the way he is supposed to, he would have found that I had the permissions. Under the circumstances the proper response by OrangeMike would be for him to replace the content in question. If he does not do so, I will file a complaint. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have permissions, then follow the procedure to prove that you have them before adding them to an article (especially when we're talking about a book about lawyers). It wouldn't matter in any case, since (as usual) the language was totally non-encyclopedic, being the kind of promotional copy intended to sell a book. You should know better by now. --13:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been an editor on Wikipedia for years, and I was not aware of this set of rules that you are talking about. Deleting a page without pointing to the relevant rule first so that the editor can fix the problem is an inefficient use of resources.

The entire Wikipedia rule structure is inefficient. Several times in the last six months I've wasted huge chunks of time trying to determine what the rules are, or at least where to find them. This is something that needs to be addressed. For example a Bot had earlier popped up on the page, and wrote this:

Lawyers In Hell

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lawyers In Hell, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.kerlak.com/lawyerhell.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of working through the information that CorenSearchBot supplied, when the page disappeared without warning. It is rather difficult to fix problems with a page when the page no longer exists. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Wikipedia is under no obligation (nor is it technically able) to deduce copyright ownership of material cut-and-pasted from external websites. If you own the content, you may submit proof via OTRS. Wikipedia is obligated to delete apparent copyright violations, and OrangeMike did indeed do his duty according to the rules. Please do not attack other editors or disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the ironies here is that Wayne/Urban is (like myself) a member of science fiction fandom, a community which is usually under attack from "mundanes" on one pretext or another. On other topics, he and I work together much better. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First pass. I got the page up, family matters intervened (it's a miracle I'm not in jail right now for second degree murder). So I got back to it later than intended to re-write the page to make it more encyclopedic. But I've lost time, the relatives have caused problems, another fan feud is costing me time as well, I have two articles due by Friday, and an elderly relative who is dying, and won't admit it. So yes, I'm not my usual bright and cheerful self, and everyone else gets to live with the fall out. Oh, and my beagle puppy got loose, and was hit by a car this morning, and didn't survive, so pardon me while I be a total bastard for a week or so. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Brobins4

Hi Mike, I have a question for you. I've been dealing with User:Brobins4 for a couple of days on one article, I would like you to look at his edits and then his talk page to see if I'm handling this correctly. He is claiming to be person in article. Thanks Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Shannon Letandre

I added a G7 speedy deletion tag to this article. You removed it stating that because it was edited by six editors it did not meet the criteria. This diff shows that since the last edit by the original author there has been no substantial content added aside from references. The requirement for G7 states that "the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author." Per this, I believe it qualifies for G7. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of User talk:Cranialsodomy

Yeah, perhaps, given that they have been active for 6 years before you blocked them, something like WP:RFCUN may have been more appropriate. Presumably, hundreds of editors before you have seen the username and not raised any objection, given the length of time it has been around, it may have been best to handle this with something smaller than the biggest gun in the arsenal. If I agree to start the thread at WP:RFCUN and see where it goes, will you concede to allow me to unblock? --Jayron32 03:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot revert

You have an issue with this? Revert of a bot? A bot run that I requested with categories that I specified? Really? For all intents and purposes I consider this a self-revert. Fyi Wikiproject members are given a great deal of discretion when it comes to tagging articles for their project. Lionel (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Incidentally a wikiproject banner is not a "classification." It is merely a tool for tracking articles for a wikiproject--it doesn't add anything to an article--it isn't political. Banners and categories are completely different. Lionel (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just seeking to understand your decision, which had no edit summary to explain it. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please pardon the tone. Your inquiries are reasonable and even welcome. The more publicity WPRight gets the better. The banner has nothing do do with article content and classification and everything to do with internal tracking of the wikiproject. This banner turns on a switch at WPRight and from now on every edit, RfC, move request, RecentChanges, will display in realtime on our project page where we have 30 members. With over 2400 articles this can be expensive. TPC is not an important article to the project, so I reverted the bot.Lionel (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jerome Corsi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Also, libel is never permitted on Wikipedia. Thank you. Lunixer (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I restored, not removed, content; said content was non-libellous wording fully sourced to cited sources. 2. Truth is an absolute defense against accusations of libel. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)