User talk:Perfect Orange Sphere

Welcome!

Hello, Perfect Orange Sphere, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.

Perfection

Well, if you are to be perfect, obviously you must be orange. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XD Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Orange Sphere, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Perfect Orange Sphere! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Los Angeles Post-Examiner

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Los Angeles Post-Examiner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion

Per WP:CSD, an article about a business must have WP:Independent sourcing, but your article solely had links to the LAPE itself. Consider using WP:Article Wizard to help you compose an article that will pass review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

I like the copyediting you've made on Argument from authority, and your contributions in general. Nice work!

meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree files

Some files that you uploaded or altered have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from user page

man i have a bad english, put this in a good english in the satan wikipedia.

Satan is the first star of the night, in the begining he has a perfect diamon, who can the light of god, the sun can light all the universe, but this prince has evil in his hearth and wants take the thone of god. All angles, stars of universe has entered in a battle and satan has turned a piece of plumbum, his piece fall in the earth, plumbum and destroy our planet, leaving diamond.

He wants live in our planet and destroy the human race. He is the prince of evil, buying all gold, the glory of god, turning his piecea, the dark ore, turning images of hell, humans, demons, animal in living, but their are all death like him.

He is corrupted all his way, wanting torture the humans, he is turing facebook in a market of a image of what kids want to turns. The humans are living in darkness, dont want the sun and other humans, all he wants is isolate the humans from other, to kill them.

He buying all humans and the creatures of this planet to him, the princ of market, the prince of bavel, egit.

But he will be destoyed by the King of The Kings, JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginingandend (talk • contribs)

Beginingandend had originally posted this on your user page. I did consider just deleting it, but didn't know how you wanted to deal with it since he's apparently acting in (completely misguided) good-faith. No skin off my nose if you just delete this entire section. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Argument from authority, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miasma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Kid

The IP in question was blocked a long time ago, and keeps coming back. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from authority page

Hey, I noticed you were active recently on the argument from authority page. There's currently a lot of discussion on the page right now, you might be interested in coming and chiming in! 97.106.144.198 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looks like someone's trying to stir up trouble over there. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for letting me know! Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin attention needed at Appeal to authority. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Argument from authority". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 February 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Argument from authority, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Argument from authority, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Argument from authority, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Hardwig

Hello Perfect Orange Sphere,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged John Hardwig for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rollingcontributor (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chromosome example

Hey, there's a lot of discussion about the chromosome example you wrote on the argument from authority page. As the original author your input might be valuable. FL or Atlanta (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, I'm JudeccaXIII. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jewish Messiah claimants without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did - didn't you read the edit history? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Perfect Orange Sphere. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Argument from authority, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. There were was consensus for the LEDE you removed, as well as multiple discussions linked and occurring on the relevant talk page(s). Next time, please use the talk page(s) to state your argument and enter into the discussion prior to making major revisions that oppose clear consensus. Endercase (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that copy-pasting a template doesn't suddenly give you authority to pretend there's a consensus. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there was no longer consensus, however prior to your reversion there was on the talk page when large changes are generally talked about. You had a great deal of time to voice your objections prior to the change. TLDR:There was consensus prior to the installation of that LEDE on the talk page. Endercase (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion

This is primarily a response to this edit which I feel needs to be addressed. Per your belief that authorities hold no weight (It should be mentioned in the article that some people (I haven't seen a single source myself that says that, and I have reviewed every single source you have linked) do disagree with the highly likely claim) we must us logic and discussion (debate?) to determine the validity or lack thereof of "my" claims. Do you consent to this discussion? Endercase (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This is because of your continued disruptive editing at Argument from authority, despite the warning that I gave before the first time I blocked you. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Perfect Orange Sphere (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

also blocked] another user primarily for the position they've taken on the dispute. They explicitly state here that the reason for the block is "you don't know what you're doing, so stop it or you'll get blocked". And this is all taking place by the request of another user who was edit warring on the page to the point it received a block. What should take place on the page is dispute resolution, which has been attempted several times but which the accusing user has pulled out of multiple times. They are circumventing the proper procedures by looking for an admin sympathetic to their view on the content dispute. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm seeing edit warring and a battleground approach to that article, and no sign of any undertaking to stop it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's worth pointing out that the claim that I was blocked for edit warring on that page is categorically false. I have only ever been blocked once, and that was a hasty block over another matter, quickly overturned and apologized for.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

03:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly said that "it" received a block, not you. This is exactly the sort of thing that's kept any progress from happening on the page. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]