User talk:Orangemike/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

AN email thread

Hi OM, I replied to your initial comment on the email issue at AN with something that, in retrospect, might have appeared to you to have been unduly flippant ("Jail? <g>")

I apologise for this as I did and do understand that yours is a genuine concern. It was just that, as has since been said by others, it probably does not matter in Real Life. I would certainly let WMF know about it but wouldn't worry unduly about any real life repercussions. As someone who has faced a fair amount of legal threats in my life, often regarding what would be classed here as BLP issues, you are so far in the clear that it is unbelievable anyone would make any sort of legal threat. Unless, of course, they are full of themselves and make such threats for a living. Put simply:

• if your respond at all then don't do so using your primary email address
• report to WMF for logging purposes
• do not fret. You are not the one who has a "fan club" of several thousand Indian caste warriors trying to locate him in order to do some possibly life-threatening damage. That should put it into perspective, I hope!

Again, my apologies for the flippancy and, please, sleep the sleep of a just person. You have nothing to fear in this instance, even if you were in fact the person who deleted the article. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No big; but he already has my home/primary e-mail address: that's the one he sent the threat to. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!

orangemike, big fan. Thanks for your recent contribution to the University at Buffalo...with the official title and name. Buffalofan4255 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

It's a question of sound sourcing. Now if you could just clean up the rah-rah boosterish tone of the article as a whole.... --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US State Legislatures

It was recently suggested that WikiProject US State Legislatures might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kool-Aid

Thanks for taking care of this--Phagopsych (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cynthia Townley

Orange Mike, You sent me an email and deleted a page my daughter wrote about me on Wikipedia. I am a writer of mystery-crime novels. I didn't personally write the Wikipedia page, my daughter did no my computer. I am somewhat confused. I checked you on Wikipedia and it seems your page is an autobiography, whereas mine was not. It was no different than a page by Lisa Gardner, Tess Garritsen, or any other American author. Please explain further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia Townley (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Did you maybe mean to address this to User:UKexpat???? Under what account was the deleted article you're talking about written? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)\

No, wasn't me, I don't have that power. As far as I can tell, there has never been a Cynthia Townley article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

But there is User:Cynthia Townley/Cynthia Townley. – ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Self Aggrandaziton

I'm sorry, I didn't know, won't happen again.

Supreme Overlord 17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chance.purvis (talk • contribs)

Williamsburg, VA

Orange Mike - You deleted text in the Williamsburg, VA wiki because I am affiliated with WYDaily. But, WYDaily is in fact the dominant newspaper in the community - how do I get Wikipedia to post the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGDATTYD (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggest changes on the talk page of the article, providing evidence from reliable third parties to back up your assertions, and disclose your own conflict of interest when you do so. (And I couldn't tell from the weblink you tried to insert whether WYD even exists as an actual hard-copy newspaper. )--Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

I am not trying to steal information, but what time zone do you live in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Since 6.18.2011 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Central. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

States rights -- direct election of senators

My unseen comment on the page was just to alert other editors, before they possibly consider deleting the unsourced section about direct election of senators, that it's probably right that the direct election switch undermined states rights. That is, I think references exist, good ones, and when I come across them, I'll add them, that's all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nestor Papoutsis

Hello, why did You delete the above mentioned article? Because it was once deleted, due to missing proof, that does not mean that it should be deleted over and over again, while also proofing links (IMDB) were attached. So in my oppinion this deletion was not correct. --YUGO (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. There is still no evidence that this person ever played ball at the professional level. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

ok lets dont talk about the bball-thing over and over again, the article clearly was associated with the producing career, as the person was labeled as an creative producer, besides imbd there was also a link of crew-united.com, this is reliable source for european film projects. So deleting an article, because of older discussion was in this case not correct, please check again those links: producer proof and physicians proof. Please check again. --YUGO (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The first link shows that somebody with the name N. Papoutsis has published two, count them two, academic papers; so what? Could be Narkissa or Nephthys or Nikostratos Papoutsis. The second link shows that somebody of this name was a producer for one, count them one, music video. So what? Neither of these even remotely amounts to any kind of claim of notability whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

V-pop

Regardless of whether we can salvage that "article," I am forever scarred by things like this.[1]. How this band is a "plagiarist" of anything but bad taste is unclear.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just want to say that despite that link I really admire your efforts to salvage that article in the face of enthusiasts who really ought to spend more time learning languages and less studying discographies. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Its fascinating pop-culture stuff to the extent I can understand it. I think the "plagiarist" label is a claim that HKT is stealing from K-pop (Korean pop) styles. There's also a number of articles and videos which use the phrase "Thảm họa V-pop", "Disaster V-Pop," to describe how awful some of it is.[2][3]. Any true fans of it are surely not going to be accomplished wiki editors.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

wiknic?

Are you planning on going to this? Protonk (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Chicago's a long walk away, and I work on Saturday afternoons anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the train for me! I'll see you around then. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

$44 round-trip on Amtrak, and losing hours of work in the bargain. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. Wasn't trying to sell you on the idea. :) Protonk (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my wife said, "Sure; go ahead." She's gonna work the afternoon shift for me, I'm taking the Amtrak, and I'll see youse guys there! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

....?

Why did you delete User:Tgwti/Summerboy (Album)? I didn't publish it because it didn't have sources and wasn't ready for publication. Tgwti (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we don't accept articles about recordings by non-notable artists. That is category A9 of speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But the article wasn't moved to a main page because it wasn't DONE. And he is notable. Need some links?

http://www.reverbnation.com/LowellBekker He is #1 in dallas on the reverbnation He's also been played on several music stations: http://www.y100.com/new2/artists/i/288250?psid=391580 http://www.talkradio1059.com/new2/artists/i/288250 http://www.mixradioonline.com/new2/artists/i/288250?psid=391580 (you can google the rest) And he's been mentioned on many blogs and videos, though I'm not going to link those here, since I know how Wikipedia HATES not notable websites ;) Tgwti (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As you've already been told, your project doesn't come remotely close to meeting WP:BAND notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles about musicians must be created first (not articles about their records), and must meet our standards for notability for musicians; you've never done that. (And none of the links you list above meets those standards, by the way.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. But the last 3 links fit in the criterias fit. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." YES! His songs are being played nationally because of some distribution company or something. That's why I linked radio stations. I can link so many more for the article, but only wanted to show you just a few so you can get the idea. You CANNOT tell me that is not in the list of criterias. Tgwti (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"His songs are being played nationally because of some distribution company or something"???? That's mere speculation on your part, neither solid nor sourced, and certainly not verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

LeafRed66

Dear OrangeMike - thank you for the bite the neebies link. It was very helpful;) I will turn a fresh page and not look back, thanks to you and Atama - much appreciated --LeafRed66 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it helped. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Steven Downes

I'm not an admin, but SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected it that time. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 23:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article does not cite any references or sources.

I think that you are the person to talk to about this. We've just fixed the Lawyers in Hell page, and got it back up, and one of the bots hit us with the above notice. Now this is a book, and it is it's own reference, which I will add later, but I got curious. So I started poking around different pages. The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume One, 1929–1964 has the same label. Curiously the The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume Two does not. Anne of Green Gables does not have it, nor does Dangerous Visions. Curiously Dangerous Visions lists an ISBN, but the ISBN is not totally correct, as a Canadian Publisher I know about the ISBN system, and that number is only applicable to the paper version of the book, the Ebook version which I have a copy of has a different ISBN, as would an audiobook version (but that is a different issue). Right now my concern is what do we do about books and citing references and sources. I'm of the opinion that books should be included in Wikipedia. However I'm a bit uncomfortable of the logic of using a circular citation (the article citing the book the article is about). From one point of view it is legitimate though. Citing the publishers site, and booksellers sites is also circular. We could cite reviews, but with genre publications, reviews tend to be written by friends. So, since you are a fan, what would you suggest? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The publishers' or dealers' websites are inappropriate, since it's ads for the book, and as notoriously unreliable and promotional as cover blurbs. Articles should be sourced to reviews and criticism from reliable sources; and bluntly, a new book like that is unlikely to have garnered much yet. See WP:BOOK for the standards it should be meeting if you don't want a rapid deletion. If there aren't such reviews and criticisms published, again speaking bluntly, it's likely to be headed for the bit-bin, as not yet notable (see WP:UPANDCOMING. As to ISBNs: I prefer the original publication ISBN, if any; and if not, the current hardcover iteration thereof if in print, or the oldest hardcover iteration with an ISBN if not. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

By those standards Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was not notable.

As to ISBN, all paper copies will have the same ISBN if from the same publisher. If the publisher changes, the ISBN will change. If the book is released under multiple formats (print, audio, ebook) it would have three ISBN, one for each format, and in that case the Wikipedia entry should list each ISBN. I also do the futurist gig, and my prediction is that brick and mortar book stores will soon be dead, as book purchasing shifts away from hard copies to ebooks. This will also kill most of the publishers, but will mean more money in the pockets of the writers, which is a positive effect from my point of view. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Meetup image

Be advised that File:Chicago Meetup 4 - orangemike.jpg is up at commons and at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 4 page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas James Ball lockdown

Hi Orangemike, I was interested in fostering a positive discussion regarding Thomas James Ball in relation to the deletion of his article from wikipedia but I noticed that when I tried that you reverted the edit and locked the talk page down. What's the best way to kick off a delete appeal under these circumstances? Some new information has come to light concerning TJB that lends credence to his being a men's rights activist at the New Hampshire state level so technically his notoriety could be established through this path. I know the original article was highly editorial and agendized and I'd like to fix that. I've argued in numerous online forums that wikipedia was right to delete this article but if there's no path to review information and change things based on new information it seems like the only path to get the article re-included is to create an article as a user for draft and request peer review once it is complete. Is this the correct path? Is trying to talk about an article that is deleted on it's talk page pointless? I really don't want to waste more of the admin's time on semantics and citations so I've decided to try and become the filter through which people might see just how difficult it actually is to write a valid article. I know you're busy but I was hoping you might be able to offer some advice. Incidentally, I agree with the original reasons for deleting the article but I do think it could have been something other than a coatrack. Numbertwopencil (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

men's rights activist at the New Hampshire state level is not even remotely a claim of notability; there's really not a men's-rights activist in most states who can meet our standards for notability, just as is true for most activists in most causes in most places: most of them may be quoted for a token paragraph or two in articles, when the press needs a quote about a news item in their area of activism, but that does not constitute substantial coverage of them as subjects. If you really think a solid new article can be crafted, then "the only path to get the article re-included is to create an article as a user for draft and request peer review once it is complete." Yes, this is the correct path. There is no talk page for deleted articles; such pages are automatically deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Orangemike. Like yourself, I'm somewhat of a deletionist. I think perhaps trying to create a master headed article directly for Thomas James Ball is a lofty ideal outside the scope of reality, I also think that perhaps others' efforts to get him included in the list of self-immolating suicides might be a bit of a reach... I've suggested elsewhere that perhaps that within the scope of the organizations that he worked with that an article about their organization (with a section on him if his loss significantly affects that organization) might be a better choice. At any rate, I hope to be able to prove ultimately either for or against the possibility of an article. I'm rational enough to understand wikipedia's reasoning behind the deletion and I hope that my user draft shows people the proper path to take when creating an article. Thanks for your response. Numbertwopencil (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike, I am very sorry if anyone is annoying you over TJB because of anything I've said about how wikipedia should work. Numbertwopencil (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If Thomas Ball fails to meet your standards of notability then how come this List of Popotan characters made the cut? There is nothing notable about whatever Popotan is supposed to be aside from spawning that stupid carameldansen meme, and that doesn't even "cite" (for lack of a better word) Popotan. Don't tell me the content of that article is more notable than a real person who publically immolated himself in a first-world country. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may, 208.106.104.40 (for brevity's sake, let's call you IP for now); an encyclopedia is not meant to be a political column in a newspaper. All subjects are given importance based on their notability. Popotan, the anime you raised, appears to be highly notable with a large viewership and many reliable sources. There are also very-detailed articles on thermodynamics, the life of Vlad the Impaler, and the 9/11 bombings - all from vastly different fields, but all notable within their fields. As I've said many times, is Mr. Ball's death tragic? Yes. Should anybody have to be pushed to those limits? No. But does his death make him notable? Unfortunately, as both community consensus and policy dictate, no. It may seem a bit cold, but these are the guidelines.

I'll also throw in a commendation for Numbertwopencil - your efforts are greatly appreciated. If you can piece together something comprehensible, non-editorialized and well-sourced, maybe we can revisit the article.

Sorry for invading your talk page, Orangemike. Cheers all, m.o.p 05:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Jim Risch

Mine could've been better, but I don't really agree with the lead that was there. The general consensus for a lead, especially the higher-quality articles at WP:GA and WP:FA, briefly address all major aspects of the subject's life. This is in line with WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A short, concise biography is expected, not just a list of two jobs.

I think Risch's serving 20 years in the Idaho Senate is absolutely an important part of his biography, for example. Even though a state senator is less notable than a U.S. Senator, state legislators are considered notable. That means he could have an entire article just for having been there, and the lead doesn't even mention it. If he became U.S. Vice President you wouldn't subsequently remove his U.S. Senate service from the lead. The fact that he was Senate President pro tempore for six years is particularly notable, as it's a major state position.

Other factors like his birthplace/school are less important, but a "concise version of the article" is very likely to include such a thing. Compare your lead to the Washington Post's extremely brief biography (to pick an example) [4] which includes more details than even mine did. I think there are ways to keep the lead short without omitting basic biographical details. The lead isn't meant to be a two-sentence affair, and no article would pass GA nomination with the current lead. —Designate (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

?

User:Since 10.28.2010 here, what templates are you talking about? I never put any templates anywhere. Please post a talkback on my talk page. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to your (reasonable) query, "But other users could just copy and paste the templates regardless. Or is that a violation against Wikipedia?" and explaining that while you are correct, it can be done, such misbehavior would have consequences. I was not accusing you of anything of the sort! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since June 18, 2011. (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since June 18, 2011. (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

/* Inside Croydon */

Hello Mike. Last month you deleted an edit on a biog because it only referenced unreliable sources. This material has reappeared in an amended form; the sources are little different, just as unreliable or inaccurate and that is now a matter of a legal dispute. A comparitive read of the accounts on the Barwell and Croydon blogs suggests that the account as listed here is wide of the mark; the local newspaper report is unsourced (apart from lifting a quote from Barwell's blog) and inaccurate.

It appears that Aristottie may well be another name for a previous malicious editor - Lolitaleveaux - who was eventually blocked by an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.37.215 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me a link so I know what you're talking about? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A link to what?

Moving on... replacing one "unreliable source" with another "unreliable source", and one which is subject to a legal complaint at present, does not help the problem with this. Question: is the Barwell case of such significance in the overall account of the career? I'd suggest not. If it needs to be included, then some context of what Inside Croydon is about is necessary.

It is interesting that, if you read Barwell's (sourced) own blog, he does admit that he has hired the councillors mentioned in Downes's report, and that they are paid from public funds. Downes's apology was not on this point at all. Hence the suspicion that maybe whoever instigated this edit may have a personal ax to grind.

If you're going to include it, it would be good to have it right 86.164.51.239 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about the Steven Downes article! Well, if any of this is true, than somebody should be providing actual reliable sources (i.e., not Downes' own blog or other people's blogs) such as newspaper articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Well if any of this is true..."? If you do not know it to be true, then surely you are not able to publish it unless or until you have it confirmed.

You raise an interesting point: how is a newspaper article (which, as you have been informed more than once, is the subject of legal action as being inaccurate, partial and malicious) any more "reliable" as a source? By its very nature, it is a "second-hand" or hearsay version, unlike direct testimony from individuals, in this case by way of their blogs. Memoirs and diaries are routinely used in biographical accounts: surely a blog is simply the 21st century version of that?

Your application of this policy is, in any case, inconsistent. You say that it should not link to "other people's blogs". Yet you allow the link to Barwell's own blog. How does this meet your test of a "reliable source"?

109.145.199.56 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've not been informed of anything; I've had some anonymous allegations in posts such as your that there is some nebulous "legal action" going on. As to the blog issue: Barwell's blog is a source for what he said in it, not for anything else. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a self-serving argument if ever there was one.

How do I escalate a complaint here, to contact directly someone who supervises what you do? 109.145.197.247 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's consistent with our policy throughout this Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice that you have evaded providing an answer about how to escalate this complaint, since your editing of this entry has created a serious libel issue that may be seen to be prejudiced or malicious.

HEY MIKE

HEY MIKE. IM NEW HERE. ACTUALLY CREATED PAGE TO AD ON TO A SINGERS PAGE. HER NAME IS SONI GUZMAN KNOWN AS SONI (1ST NAME), AN ACTUAL PERSON. WHEN I WENT TO THE PAGE THE ONE I SEEN A YEAR AGO WAS DELETED & MENTIONED YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THE DELETION. SO, HERE I AM. CURIOUS AS TO THERE BEING A WAY TO GET THAT PAGE BACK UP. IT SEEMS YOU ARE A WIKI PRO. NEED YOUR HELP ON THIS ONE. OTHER ARTISTS WIKI PAGES MENTION HER ON THERE DISCOGRAPHY BUT THE LINK DOESNT WORK OR DOESNT EXSIST. YOU CAN SEE HER INFO BY TYPING IN HER NAME IN I-TUNES WITH HER HIT "HERE TO STAY". <redacted> SHE IS LEGENDARY DJ TONY TOUCH'S ARTIST. VERY NEW TO THIS. THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY UNTIL I REALIZED THE PAGE WAS DELETED. HELP --Legitinformation123 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitinformation123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Don't shout. Your computer or smartphone has a shift key; use it.

2. Anybody can put their junk on iTunes; and YouTube links and subject's own website prove nothing. Where is the substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources?

3. New posts go at the bottom of the page.

4. Avoid meaningless noise like "legendary DJ" So-and-So; the word "legendary" has a actual meaning, and it has nothing to do with DJs. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjparchitects

Hi there. Did you warn this editor before blocking him indefinitely? Which of his 17 edits was so bad? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He/she was adding a series of edits and spamlinks, all calculated to glorify a short list of architects apparently affiliated with the firm MJP Architects. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently? Not quite sure how you have deduced that. I agree that normally just a name like that would be a giveaway. But in this case, it doesn't lokk quite so clear cut. The refs all looked very well formatted too, not much like your average spammer. You seem to have pounced rather quickly on this one. Not quite sure how you would prove your case. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. In the interest of not being bitey, I've switched to a softerblock on User:Mjparchitects. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems fairer. Thanks for the adjustment. We'll see what happens, if anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel fully vindicated, haha! (Doesn't often happen). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Less biting, more writing; that's our goal here! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

UW-Milwaukee

Am I doing anything wrong concerning this anon editor who keeps wanting some photo involving Jack Kilbey put on the UW-Milwaukee article? I revert the editor suggesting the anon editor go to the UW-Milwaukee talk page. I even added Jack Kilbey's name to the list of UW-Milwaukee alumni. I know we are supposed to be welcoming and helpful to the new editors/anon editors but it gets difficult at times with vandalism/test edits/incorrect edits. Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kilby's UWM's only Nobel Prize winner; the anon doesn't seem to grasp that we don't have a public-domain photo we can use in the gallery, and is too clueless to read the code <gallery> in the page code, when trying to insert bio data into a gallery section. Kilby was in the alumni section for a long time, and there's no reason you should have needed to put him back in?! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Recreating article on Jaiprakash Gaur

Hi Orangemike, I was going to create a article on Jaiprakash Gaur, and it says a article with same name was deleted by you previously. Is there a way I can see the previous contents, just to be sure I am not putting the same content. - abhi (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created a stub, based in part on the old article and in part on a newer, more solid reference. Please improve it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restructured the article and expanded the article with references. Now that User:Jalindia is no more the major contributor, can you please review article for COI and cleanup tags. - abhi (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and concern.

I think a better choice of words may be I want Mr. Gutierrez' biography on wiki to encmpass his life, work, and life-time achievements. Prior to Fluffermutter creating a page for discussion, the site was not representative of Mr. Guierrez' legacy. Thank you for your help.--Maryphillips1952 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mike, see Horacio Gutiérrez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the discussion on the talk page. It looks like the article is being discussed and I have told this user that Wikipedia does not exist to be "representative of Mr. Guierrez' legacy". – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello: I am sorry to have caused such problems. In my mind anyone or anything written about on wiki leaves a legacy for mankind. Again, I apologize if I have offended editors with inappropriate word usage. --Maryphillips1952 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to keep apologizing, you haven't offended anyone. We are just trying to make sure that you understand what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish to echo the sentiments of my learnéd colleague. Nobody is taking offense; we're just reminding you that this is not a venue for publicity and memorialization, but rather for a dispassionate assembling of documented facts into a coherent whole. Don't sweat it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I respect all you do. I will try to meet all your standards. I don't want to do anything wrong with the current website updates. Best, Mary Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Reinie Press

You deleted Reinie Press before the ink dried. I was in the process of adding an important section. User:Eurodog 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to restore and userfy it so that you could actually provide some sources and an assertion of notability (both of which were lacking in the item I deleted)? Unsourced biographies of living persons don't have much of a shelf life; and a press kit is not a reliable source for much of anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rude person at help desk...OR NOT

Since 10.28.2010 has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Since 10.28.2010 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 July 2011

Maryknoll

Just saw (I think!) that you added some tags/templates to the Maryknoll article, which say to 'check the talk page'. There's nothing there. From what I can tell, the Maryknoller added some info about the founding, possibly irrelevant info, but that's all. And a personal question, you have userboxes for "I'm Irish" and "I'm American" on your page... which is it? Or dual nationality? :P - ChrisWar666 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I explained my concern in my edit summary; as the template says, "Please discuss further on the talk page." As to the userboxen: I'm an American of (partially) Irish ancestry, part of the Orange-and-Green Diaspora; my late brother's name was Patrick. (I'm a republican in the Irish [and Scots] sense, never the American; and a unionist in the American sense, never the Irish.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, consider this an invitation to come over to the talk page so we can work out some possible improvements? I'm going to sleep now, but I might post something when I wake up ;). Just Ireland and Scotland? What about the Welsh?? Or are we too stupid to be granted devolution?? :P (Personally, I don't think the countries would survive without each other...). Goodnight! - ChrisWar666 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No Cymry in my ancestry, so I didn't immediately think of them; and even my lovely Manx wife agrees that Manx nationalism (like Cornish) is a non-starter. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy Pasch

You recently reverted an edit of mine to Sandy Pasch, stating that "VoteSmart is in fact a non-partisan, impartial reliable source; what led you to assert otherwise?"

The Wikipedia policy for reliable sources notes that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Votesmart is a reliable source, but it is not published, and a tertiary source rather than secondary source - it's a compilation of primary source data without analysis, discussion, or anything else. Hence, it doesn't seem to meet the Wikipedia standards. To illustrate why this is the case, content added to Wikipedia needs to be significant and notable. There's no obvious impartial reason to include any specific vote over all hundred or so that Rep. Pasch voted on in her time in the Assembly.

Indeed, the votes listed there at the moment appear to be selected specifically in order to cost her votes in the upcoming high-profile recall election. If you would like to keep the sections, I would suggest that you find reliable published sources giving the same information, and also add additional voting record information that is not skewed against her. Seleucus (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In the modern era, placed on that website does constitute "published". I agree that the votes being used are being selected by somebody with a simply darling agenda; but VoteSmart is not the issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Faith and rope

I have replied to your message on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the outcome. You may regard it as proving I was wrong about faith, or as proving I was right about rope, whichever you prefer. I am going for the rope. Either way, you were right. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you for welcome, further q about COI

Thank you for the welcome, I hope this reply is posted in the the correct place?

I do indeed have a COI, as I am the church leader's wife. Would this prohibit me from adding to a list of places of worship? The church hs ben established since 2003 and is a part of the church of england, a reputable organisation I hope!

I woud be very happy (indeed very pleased) for the orignal editor to make the list more accurate for users by adding our church, but if it is up to me to carry out the edit and acceptable for me to do so, I would sure appreciate some help with the formatting Curlymop (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

article in question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_of_worship_in_Arun#cite_note-NHLE-1027708-53 the sction is called open places of worship. I'm sorry I haven'tworked out how to ut brace round the aricle so it cmes out as a blue link - I must read some more of the help files but am trying to be quick. I got the identation right I think! Curlymop (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the article has mainly been edited by one person, and they are active (last edit one month ago) I am happy to talk to them if that is more appropiate, you seem to be a very busy person yourself. thanks again for the welcome, the first person you meet makes a big impression! Let me know if best to contact the editor direct. Curlymop (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem; delighted to be of help. Looked at the list: the two Friends' Meetinghouses look okay, but I'm unlikely to make it to Arun in my lifetime. Your best bet is to post to the talk page of the list (i.e., Talk:List of places of worship in Arun), providing the information you have such as postal and street address and the like, any useful URLs or print references (preferably not published by the church), and the like, and disclosing your own conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do Curlymop (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check

• Sorry, I lost my head here. Could use some help and sanity check while I go to sleep, thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on M39 cannon

• I've replied to your comment on Talk:M39 cannon. And thanks for trying to cool tempers. -- Mecanismo | Talk 19:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for July 2011

United States dollar, a page you have edited recently or significantly contributed too, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for July 2011. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Curlymop's talk page.
Message added 20:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

E♴(talk) 20:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why on earth did you move this page from a user's userspace just to tag it for speedy deletion? I just can't comprehend it. If you did not believe it was worthy of the mainspace, inform the user of the notability concerns. Don't move it to the mainspace. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It was moved as a courtesy at the user's request. (I'm usually accused of being too bitey to noobs, not too courteous.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think there is a reason that users who are not autoconfirmed cannot move pages. Just because the user requested a move, does not mean it should have been moved. To move a page and then tag it for speedy deletion just seems hypocritical. Not to sound bad, I couldn't think of a less loaded word. Moving a page for a user implies that it is ready for the mainspace. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. If you thought that the page was not suitable for mainspace then you should have declined the move request. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement. If you thought it was not suitable, then you should have told the user of that opinion, and said that if they insisted that you would move it but that you would take it to AfD - that way if they say "move it anyway" the community can discuss it. Obviously, if other editors at AfD thought it should be speedily deleted, that's another matter. Alternatively, you could have refused and taken the page to MfD. Either way, I feel you were out of order to move it and then tag it for deletion. Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve.alt/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|talk

You shouldn't have tagged the page for speedy deletion before I could see it - Celeste6566.

Thanks, aka, Re: Signing your posts - sorry about the template, but it contains handy links

The night before last I discovered "Vincent J. Lipsio 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)" and commenced using it, but I thank you for noticing my unsigned posts and appreciate their being some oversight as I'm obviously a beginner at contributing to Wikipedia.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsio (talk • contribs)

You should use the code rather than just cutting and pasting; it generates a set of links to your userpage and talk page, very useful for interacting with your fellow editors; and it keeps SineBot from coming along afterwards to sign for you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

> Huzzah!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, finally, and, again, my apologies for gunking stuff up. I am a firmware engineer with 35 years' experience and should know better to preview changes and carefully observe what I'm doing, but I've been in hurry, squeezing Wikipedia edits within my paid work.

BTW, noting that you were a delegate to the 2004 DNC, let me disclose that I was a Bradley delegate from Florida to the 2000 DNC.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting experience, this delegate thing, ain't it? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The conventions are big pep-rallies and parties for the party faithful and at the DNC we had no input at all; at least in Florida State conventions, there were (probably still are) some real decisions made. -- Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Needed article

Yes, Territorios Nacionales seems to be a pending issue here: the spanish Wikipedia has a better information within es:Provincias de Argentina, having in account that it`s an historic matter (nowadays Argentina hasn`t national territories). I'm able to translate from english to spanish, but not so sure to do the opposite. --Antur (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Larry Shaw

Orangemike, I don't know if this is the right venue to answer you, but anyway, you wrote to me: "While your contributions here are appreciated, some of these changes rather puzzle me, as they add no further information (why re-define the Futurians when the reader can just follow the link?) while making the article's language feel rather stilted and over-formal (i.e., "E.C. Comics company" rather than "E.C. Comics"). What was your reasoning?"

My response: No further info: I didn't intend to add info, I was simply changing the language to what I believe is better English. I know I should have said that in the edit box, but I often forget to do that.

I didn't "re-define" Futurians, I defined it. Reader can just follow the link: That's partly the point. Why make the reader interrupt reading by linking to another page, when the term Futurians can simply be explained (in general terms) by a few words? Wiki guidelines include avoidance of jargon; I'm a sf fan myself and knew who the Futurians were but this is certainly not true of everyone; it sounded like an cliquish "insider" comment more appropriate for a fan mag than an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to explain. There's plenty of room for the extra words, and I was willing to do the work. Also, links are usually good, but philosophically I think we should also try to avoid burdening the web with extra back-and-forth traffic if we can (not everyone's computer is very quick, either).

Language feel rather stilted and over-formal: It doesn't seem "stilted" to me, although I realize you may disagree due to what you are accustomed to. As for "over-formal" in my opinion the former wording was too casual and informal. It is after all an encyclopedia not a street-corner conversation, and I think a good example should be set of using language precisely and saying exactly what is meant, with a minimum of cliche's, slang, figurative expressions, etc... This is a general complaint of mine about Wikipedia, where I've read for example that someone was "kicked out of" his apartment (actually he was simply evicted).

It doesn't hurt to be explicit about E.C. Comics being a company. I know there are wikis for other languages, but I suspect many non-primary-English speakers are using the English-language Wikipedia, some of them young people from socialist countries who may not understand clearly that by "Comics" a company was meant. Another philosophical point is that precise, non-figurative language greatly assists computer translations to other languages and to machine language. You may not agree, but I wanted to explain that there was reason involved and the changes were not simply random or idle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilo (talk • contribs) 01:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Amina Arraf

Hi! In regards to the Amina Arraf edit,

I started a noticeboard page based on Joatsimeon's edits: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari.2C_Minal_Hajratwala

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Joatsimeon reverted your edit saying there were BLP issues. He did not say which ones there were and why on the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see talk on the relevant page. Your rewrites do not address what I see as the significant issues concerning BLP and either the Hajratwala material should be removed or the article rewritten to reflect MacMaster's statement reported on gawker.com. Thanks. Joatsimeon (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Joatsimeon's revisions were flawed. One thing on Gawker that may be citeable is MacMaster's response to Hajratwala, but it needs to be clearly attributed to MacMaster, and I believe that some things MacMaster says in the e-mail he sent to Gawker violate BLP. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Absatlantic

Hey Mike, I just wanted to let you know that I unblocked Absatlantic. They swore that they won't edit about Aaron Bay-Schuck or any other related article (to comply with WP:COI), which, to be honest, is even more than we normally request of editors who have a COI. They're also requesting a username change. I don't think the editor will be a problem given their willingness to comply with our guidelines but I wanted to notify you of this. Thanks (as always). -- Atama頭 21:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, give 'em the ol' WP:ROPE treatment; but PR and A&R people don't have a real good track record in these matters. I assume, of course, that you will watch them to make sure they aren't back doing PR for Atlantic and Schuck. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They're on my list, yes. :) -- Atama頭 07:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleveland, TN, and Mr. Jones

Hey, Orangemike. After having deleted it twice earlier today, I restored the name of Allan Jones to the "notables" list at Cleveland, Tennessee (albeit without the puffery and vanity links that had been there earlier) after the anon posted on my talk page, I looked at the substantial third-party RS coverage in the Google search results supplied by the anon, and I decided "Oops, this guy truly does look like he needs an article." I didn't start an article about him myself because I judge him to both repugnant and not particularly interesting, but I figure he can be listed in the Cleveland article until somebody writes an article. This is a guy who made half a billion dollars from paycheck-anticipation loans to poor people -- that's a notable story, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

IP blocks

Hi Orange Mike! As an FYI, two IPs that you indef blocked had their blocks changed to one month long blocks: http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/UserCompare/Joatsimeon.html - Apparently IP blocks are not supposed to be indefinite... WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

aka

Hi,

With regard to your move of Ian Hughes (aka epredator), this seems an odd choice as a/k/a is far less common than "aka" or "a.k.a." and the rationale appears incorrect as aka is listed as an abbreviation in the OED [5]. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Mop & Bucket" misanthropy

Dear Orange Mike -

Your comment that "Admins are really just glorified janitors..." is revealing, although you meant it as self-deprecation.

Who's monitoring the behavior of the Admins? No one, as far as I can see. Even a flagship site such as Emily Dickinson has been "hijacked" by the Administrator, who defends abuses by a coterie of contributors. A close reading of the talk page will demonstrate this.

Anybody who's red-inked is pretty well reduced to changing their username every few months to avoid administrative "janitors" cleaning up what they regard as shit, under the false aegis of defending the integrity of Wikipedia contributions. The members of the coterie get away with any amount slip-shod editing and creative misuse of WR.

By the way, don't forget to check out my "contribs" link, so you can evaluate my credentials, and rank my status at Wiki. Right? A filthy business, indeed. Ol'Campy (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. TNXMan 20:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Tight Rolled Pants

My edit to the aforementioned subject was deleted as "Continued Nonsense." What is considered continued nonsense, as my edit was actually true. Shouldn't I be contacted before assuming the fundamentalist of dungaree fashions is in the right? Just curious as to how this works. TheStrawboss (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)theStrawboss

Your only edits have been to claim that some kid nobody ever heard of in Dayton, Ohio invented this fad; this unsupported assertion has been repeatedly inserted by you, and promptly rejected, since there is no evidence whatsoever to support you. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem

You just blocked User:Asswipe1. Did you happen to see who reverted their one edit? Usernameblock? ;) Drmies (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

They could just be proud pavono-Americans. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Which reminds me--on ANI I learned the word "asshattery", a couple of weeks ago. It's my favorite new word. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he made an edit. I found the username in the creation log and reported it. Calabe1992 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Asswipe1

I don't think you put the right notice on this person's talk page (should be that he was blocked). Calabe1992 (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs

Shortly after I created that MFD, I realized that in the past I have created a page that could be construed as similar: User:Uncle_Milty/Hoax_page_links. Hopefully I haven't been hypocritical in my creation of this MFD. I also realized after the fact that probably shouldn't have included so much speculation in my reasoning for the MFD. Thoughts? Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable as is. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Missed sock?

• Mike, you missed another one → Boydcoddingtonjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That one could be a real name. Have you templated them? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I did templated him and I also realised that it could be his son but there is real no way to ascertain that since it was registered about a month ago but waited until the newly registered account (which was just blocked by you) started to edit and he started to did the same too. More unanswered questions now. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hubertine Heijermans

Hello, Glad to read that you are from Tennessee. You might understand, why I did not to translate the article in french. Paldopaldino, who first inserted it in january 2011 comes from the Ticino, the Italian part of Switzerland. His french is not good enough. I also do not master the french language like they do in France. And the Swiss do NOT have wikipedia. Actually the french people look sort of down on the dialect of the French speaking part near Geneva, Lausanne or Montreux, close to my home. By the way, Swietlan Kraczyna, mentioned in the article was teaching at the American Graduate School Villa Schifanoia in Florence (Fiesole). Today that school does not exist any more. Now I see, that though he was the photographer of the 1966 Flood of The River Arno in 1966, that is mentioned absolutely nowhere, apart from on a tiny place on english wikipedia, you can see a book with a photo of a boat with people in it, peddling in the streets of Florence. The pictures have been bought by Robert Clark, who wrote 'Dark waters', a good book, mentioning 'Mudangels.' The Americans did good rescue work. Anyway you see I have little affinity with french, so I would love this article to obtain enough votes. It would make many people in many countries very happy. Thanks for your suggestion and help, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an Italian-language Wikipedia as well, in which a first article could be written. As you've seen, there are always opportunities for the creation of new articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

New Video Group

Hello orangemike, earlier today I attempted to create a page for New Video Group, an independent film company, which focuses on the distribution of independent films. I am in no way attempting to market, or publicize for New Video, I'm just trying to supply people on the internet with information about this new and revolutionary company. (I used barnstar to send you this message because I do not know of any other way to contact you) Dbrandt1119 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |}

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Video Group. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the article New Video, that article was created by User:NewVideoDigital. Are you User:NewVideoDigital? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for assistance in setting up a new wikipedia page.

Mike,

Sorry to have gone through the wrong channels; however, I am confused about how to correctly use your website. I work for a large independent distribution company, and we are looking to update our information across the web, and are looking to get accurate data up on wikipedia. You can reference the about section of our website: <redacted> Our intention was neither to market nor to overtly publicize ourselves, rather to create an informative page that seemed to be well within the confines of Wikipedia's standard content pages. Please let me know how this might be done.

Appreciate your support and, again, have no desire to breach the wiki-rules. Dylan Dbrandt1119 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Again: are you in fact User:NewDigitalVideo? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am NewDigitalVideo Dbrandt1119 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Music Emissions

Orangemike...It's clear your dedication to Wiki, but I'm confused as to why your reverted the page back to posting a "notability or guideline warning". Can you please advise what exactly is missing from the Music Emissions page to ensure its notability. There are countless cross-references from artists and corporations alike throughout the web as well as Wiki, formerly accrediting the publication. I appreciate your assistance in advance. Hstisgod 14:55, 8 July 2011

No response? I apologize if I've broken a paramount WIKI signature requirement or etiquette, but take some responsibility for your job. Do a quick keyword search and you'll find I am NOT THE OWNER, just a long-term believer and user of the site. Anyone who writes on WIKI has knowledge of something imperative for the world to know. I dare you to search the very basic term "Music Reviews" on any search engine, any browser. Amongst names such as Spin, Pitchfork, Billboard, AMG, comes Music Emissions commonly in the top results.. The truth will set you free sir. Instead of filling the void with blind negativity, pass on some of that great knowledge as to what is required to fit your notability guidelines, and it shall be met within days. How many artists, labels, how many corporations have to recognize Music Emissions as a credible source of news and source? But for sincerity's sake, don't just ignore the messages, it places your notability in question. Hstisgod 1:55, 10 July 2011

Here's the bottom line, Wiki editors have earned the right to judge the importance of articles. But if they do not perform due diligence, should they not be questioned by other editors? Music Emissions has been providing a service to an ever-changing independent artist industry for 12 years. Take the page down or perhaps consider the ever-loving possibility that not every one digs in yours [every] corner of the web. Not everything on Yahoo! Google or MSN is the breaking branch of the inter-webs. Keep your eyes on the industry and you'll notice Music Emissions was just recently mentioned in a competitor's print magazine. This is a last ditch effort before I swear off the only website that has had a 99% dependability rate. What gives you, one representative of the site, the credibility to decide a website with 12 years of longevity is not important to a good portion of people across the world? Delete the article, but at least spend a moment visiting the very site you have condemned as "non-noteworthy". I write this last response on YOUR page, regardless of who responds. I'd like to know, why are you so robotic about something you have yet to experience? Hstisgod 11:57, 15 July 2011

Nothing give me that credibility; all I did was suggest that the site doesn't meet our standards, and opened up a discussion for input from other editors (including yourself). That's how we do things here. You should be participating in that discussion, not coming over here to bait me. I have 10,308 pages on my watchlist; that is just one of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this Mike

Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Patrick_Henry_League. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

indef block of 74.142.195.13

The block (indef block against an IP, no less) of 74.142.195.13 for "legal threats" is completely ludicrous imho. WP:LEGAL notably mentions WP:Libel in its section on What is not a legal threat:

Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-enwikimedia.org.

None of the established editors at WP:HD have pointed the IP editor to WP:Libel or mentioned the information team's email address. Why the hell are you guys so utterly unhelpful towards obvious newbies who, as it turns out in this case, do have a legitimate concern? Maybe the Help Desk should be appropriately renamed the IP Berating Desk. Srsly, this block, without even mentioning the proper avenues for the legitimate concerns of the human being behind the IP address, does warrant a trout slap. --213.196.193.4 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not an indefinite block, but a short-term one. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your note at the IP talk says "indef" in bold letters though.

Regardless, any block against that IP is ludicrous; not even mentioning WP:Libel and the info team's email address is very bad style.

Please don't evade the very real issue here. --213.196.193.4 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The template is malfunctioning, even when the parameters are used. I have placed the language you suggested about libel on the relevant talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pembroke Management Limited

Mike,

I believe you have delete my page without cause on July 1st. A7 was noted, however the title was Pembroke Management Limited (Limited is a legitimate corporation type). The first line was also... "is a privately held Canadian investment management firm..."

Please reinstate the page.

Best, A341672 — Preceding unsigned comment added by A341672 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — A341672 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It was deleted, since there was nothing to indicate the significance of the subject matter (there are many tens of thousands of privately held Canadian investment management firms). I've restored it to a sandbox in your userspace, User:A341672/Pembroke Management Limited; but it needs work, especially with things like "sources" that are merely footnotes to other Wikipedia articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Promotionalism

I see you have noticed the messages on my talk page from Mooney1084v. If this continues, would you please do what you think necessary. I don't want to do it myself, as I do not want to give any opportunity for saying that I might be considered overinvolved. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Robina Suwol

CentralAbe (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)CentralAbe To: Orangemike Thanks for your help and suggestion for the Robina Suwol page. I am new to Wikipedia and want to follow protocol but in trying to help believe I harmed the article. The links I added were directly related to the text in red.Suwol has been a leader in kids health and so when I saw the text while searching for the policy she created, tried to help. If you can assist, it would be helpful. Thanks CentralAbe (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)CentralAbe

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Etonassociate

I have unblocked this user to CHU. He started as "Etonassociates", I told him that wasn't on, he suggested "Etonassociate" and I thought as that was now clearly an individual, and in view of the disclaimer on his user page, that: "would probably be allowed, but in my opinion is not really desirable... Keep it if you like, and see whether anyone objects." He did, you did, and now he'll change it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL

You are threatening to block me? You serious? LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIsraelite777 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Bollas

Crikey, you're quick. I got an edit conflict as soon as I started trying to make some improvements - turns out you made most of the changes I had in mind, plus some stuff I hadn't thought of. I'll leave you to it for the time being; no point in both of us chipping away at the same time. All the best, Yunshui (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added some sources and a few minor fleshings-out; the article is starting to look quite promising. I'd never heard of this guy, but it looks as though he really is a pretty major player on the psychoanalysis scene. Yunshui (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

how I delete this account

Another wrote to me "I believe you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide a free, neutral, and verifiable encyclopedia"

No I am exactly clear on that. I provided that.

Now I am getting "Gang" mail from you and others about a personal attack, when I made a comment that is TRUE about removing the truth from an alleged "encyclopedia"

Just let me know how I delete this account - I have no further interest in wiki.

I do not need to devote my time to this - I will get more hits and higher search engine rankings using my own websites - and make money and revenue by not being bothered with this wiki - or emails from ANY of anyone here associated with wiki.

Just let me know how I delete this account - I have no further interest in wiki.

And I do mean delete - including the "talk" page I did not ask for nor want, nor created

2bobburns (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

UPittIT Block

Hi Orangemike,

Hope you are doing well and I appreciate your work here on Wikipedia. I have some questions regarding the block of UPittIT. Although I too have some concerns with this account which primarily are the lack of this editor's responsiveness to numerous warnings of copyright concerns (as Hammersoft had pointed out), and the editor's lack of engagement in dialogue regarding these issues. This could be simple misunderstanding of the copyright policy for the editor's user space, but the repeated violations are disconcerting. In fact, I can't be entirely sure that the user account is only one person (a kind of reverse sockpuppetry that makes me uneasy). However, it is my understanding that editors are not in WP:COI solely due to their place of employment or username, but rather because of the issues of POV, reliability and neutrality of their contributions. Irregardless, in this case my particular my concern is the work the editor had done in his or her own sandbox (the now deleted User:UPittIT/D-Scribe Digital Publishing). Although this user showed the possibility of future COI issues, this had not been demonstrated because all of his/her work (as far as I know) had been confined his/hers user sandbox. The editor was an obvious newbie, and had twice sought feedback (see here and here) and had been responsive to suggestions demonstrated by the removal of pervasive external links, downsizing of the article, rewriting so it was not in violation of WP:NOTDIR, and the addition of outside, neutral third-party references. In fact, although I did not see any of the editor's additions to this particular article since July 7th, in my opinion, it contained useful information, was notable, and was ready to be moved from the user space into Wikipedia proper. Mostly, I would request that this page be restored, as I would like to create that particular article myself and will not be able to duplicate the off-line references from various library science journals that had been inserted. I guess you could say that I primarily lament the loss of this particular article. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue, and your review of the D-Scribe Digital Publishing article circa the July 7th version as I would like to see if there is anything salvageable from that (sans the copyright violations that Hammersoft elucidated). Thank you. 22:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazypaco (talk • contribs)

I'll restore the earlier version and userfy it to you, but you have to first assure me that you'll dump all the copyright violations (my biggest worry). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I definitely want to clean the violations out. I'll move it to my sandbox so you can verify if you want, and you can redelete then, whatever makes you most comfortable. Thanks in advance. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See User:CrazyPaco/D-Scribe Digital Publishing. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll start working on it when I get opportunities to do so. If you have any concerns regarding its content, please feel free to let me know. I'll warn in advance if I am ready to take it live. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, or if it's inappropriate that I'm not logged in. I could not figure out any other way to communicate my concerns to you.

Greetings,

When I first began this project of adding information about the digital libraries at the University of Pittsburgh, I explicitly asked about the conflict of interest issue. I was told that due to my username, I would have to be extra careful in ensuring that I had neutral language if I wanted to be able to proceed - I was not told to change my username to a less controversial one. Therefore I find it slightly disconcerting that it wasn't until after I'd put months of work into the project that I was blocked. I am still confused over the attention that this username issue has gotten. Wouldn't it be rather easy for a user who is affiliated with whatever they're writing about to simply conceal his or her identity with a misleading username? By using the name I chose, I was attempting to immediately disclose my affiliation so that my article could be held to a higher standard of neutrality.

Additionally, I am a part-time employee. I only have five hours each week to work on this Wikipedia project. I think that may be part of the blame for my perceived lack of response or interaction. Also, this is my first time working on Wikipedia. I doubt it is of any surprise to you that it is not the most intuitive layout ever. I was under the impression that imperfect items could be in my sandbox. The language of the material may appear partial, or the photos may not have clear tags on them yet, but I thought the point of the sandbox was to have a place to work and perfect the material so that it can be published. It now appears that just as much attention is given to the material inside the sandbox as is given to the actual pages of Wikipedia. It was certainly my misunderstanding, and I never thought I would even be at risk to be blocked until I actually published something.

Contrary to the discussions that have been going on about my use of images, I have been putting a great deal of effort into securing images and permissions that would not violate any copyright policies. My first go round of just uploading the thumbnails was misguided, I admit it. However, since then I have been working on a trial-and-error basis to figure out what tags I have to include to make a photo acceptable. I apologize for this methodology, but again, it is quite hard to secure this kind of information on the site. I finally thought I made a breakthrough last week with determining that the way and intention toward the images I wanted to use qualified for the fair use rationale which, as far as I understand it, they do. I therefore uploaded the images under these conditions. I realize that the pages must be officially launched in order for the photos to qualify as fair use, but I thought I had until the end of the week to do this.

There is valuable information on these pages, and I do not think the world should be made to be unaware of it simply because I am new to the Wikipedia community. I think someone should still work to publish them, but I'm not exactly sure how I can proceed from here and not get in trouble with the community. I'm certainly not going to attempt to appeal my username being blocked since I don't entire understand how I can abuse this function, so I don't want to risk doing it. This is a fairly substantial project that was assigned to me, and I would like very much to not see all of it wasted. I would therefore appreciate clear guidance on how to proceed from here.

Even after I post this, I have no idea if any of you who originally brought forth the concerns will be made aware of it. Do I have to post your names somewhere in here?

Thank you,

UPittIT (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.185.172 (talk) 130.49.185.172 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Orangemike, Thanks for the note. I saw your post adding my signature since I forgot to do so myself. I removed your auto signature and added my own. Just wanted to let you know what I intended to do with that change...was trying to go back and add the signature I forgot. EricJ1995 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trap Door (magazine)

The article Trap Door (magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Entirely uncited - unclear this is notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to your question

In response to your rather abruptly worded editing comment at this diff: [6] it would be the part where a reliable secondary source reports on it to signify its significance. In the current form that is the only claim for notability, and it didn't even win - it was just nominated along with many others. Perhaps with your extensive knowledge of the area it sounds notable to you, but it would be helpful to have some reporting on the fact that it was nominated to establish the notability of such a claim. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:2bobburns

User talk:2bobburns, 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 talk:2bobburns and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:2bobburns 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. VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Manakorn Mekprayoonthong

You prodded the Manakorn Mekprayoonthong article. The exact same article was created at Mac Freestyler after you prodded the first article. I just asked for a speedy delete on Mac Freestyle under A10. I swear I've seen another article that was deleted that was very similar. A freestyle footballer and model. Don't remember if it was Thailand or not. Anyway, I have a feeling this won't be the last we see of him. Bgwhite (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooops... If you have to do an AfD on Manakorn, could you tell me so I can chime in on to delete it. Bgwhite (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:2bobburns

First, to clarify: this is more of a procedural question - I have no intent of reverting the deletion - I agree with the outcome, just have questions on the process and/or reason given.

I noticed that you deleted User talk:2bobburns under WP:CSD#U1; but that criteria explicity states that it does not apply to user talk pages, and WP:VANISH#Deletion of user talk pages also states that user talk pages should be deleted only at MfD.

I think this specific case was an ideal candidate for applying WP:IAR, as it was a short-lived user with only two warnings and no discussions on the talk page, but that wasn't called out in the deletion reason.

My main questions are around if this is a case of a CSD not being in-line with actual practices? I don't think I've done a user-talk deletion myself, I'm not familiar with any ideosyncracies in that sub-area of deletion activity. Or was it just a case of IAR should have been listed in the reason? If actual practice is to ignore the wording of CSD#U1 in this regard, should a discussion be started about modifying the wording (as well as the wording of related pages that refer to the limits of CSD#U1)?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw you had reversed the speedy, so I undid the early closure that had been applied to the MfD. I still think that this could be a good candidate for IAR, and have posted that at the MfD. If nothing-else, I think this should generate a snowball delete close pretty quickly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think OM's first instincts were right here. Deletion meets, IMHO, the spirit of U1 even if not the letter; we're not covering up any important information. I've re-deleted the talk page per U1/IAR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hi there Orangemike - I've proposed something for the GNAA COI issue at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conclusion, decision. Several GNAA members have voted, as have two neutral editors, and myself (involved, I suppose). I'm trying to get more neutral editors to comment on the proposal (a topic ban of sorts), and was wondering - seeing as you'd already commented - if you would oblige me? As far as canvassing goes, I'm only contacting neutral editors - no-one from the anti-GNNA crowd. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:BalboaRV

I've been trying to convince this user that his only problem is his username, but he doesn't seem to fully believe it. Would you mind popping over and giving a word or two of encouragement? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for your message regarding COI. I tried to follow all the correct steps to avoid having the Voices-Voix article deleted due to COI - I created a draft which was looked over by an editor and I made the necessary changes. I've included reliable third party sources as well. I would like for the article to go live but I don't think I should do that before I am sure it will not be deleted again. Should another editor look at it? Not sure where to go from here. Thanks.

Raiseyourvoice2011 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Darling article

Actually the text added to the Alberta Darling article was inaccurate as it stated that Alberta Darling expressed support for giving tax breaks to those earning more than 250,000 a year in the Belling interview, when the quote actually read "Those are small business people. Those aren’t wealthy people. We are not interested in raising taxes on the quote “rich”". This was said in response to a woman who had said she considered those who made more than $250,000 a year wealthy. Nowhere in the quoted portion of the interview did Darling say "that those earning more than $250,000 a year should be given a tax break" as the added text asserted. There is a big difference between saying that one opposes raising taxes and saying that one supports giving "tax breaks". One implies support for keeping current rates and deductions, while the other implies that one is advocating lowering current rates or creating new or expanded tax deductions. --Tdl1060 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. She takes the position that current levels are NOT giving these people tax breaks, despite the fact that at those levels taxes are a fraction of what they were during the Eisenhower or even Nixon administrations, however absurd I regard such an assertion as being. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Charles Whitman's victims

Be prepared for some wikilawyer to pop up and say WP:MEMORIAL is not a speedy deletion criterion! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Desktop CYBER page

Why did you remove the link to Subversion repository of the Desktop CYBER emulator? It is a link to the C sources of the emulator. Cdccyber (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not a useful link, and under our guidelines for external links had no place in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

W.V. Grant

Excuse me? I do not vandalise anything. I am fair and write from a neutral point of view. Furthermore I post to the talk pages most of the time on controversial issues. So explain how this is Vandalism? I state facts and if you are going to write something I want to see the cite. Not only about this but any article.

Are you stating that by asking to see cite's I am vandising something or by explaining the when you cannot use the word "phony" is inappropriate is vandalism. I am sorry you are way off base here. I posted everything I know about on the talk page. I don't want to slant the artilce in a pro stance but I dont want it to state things it should not state because there is no cite. Don't you agree?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You falsified a direct quote because you didn't agree with the word used by the source. That's vandalism. That's all I'm saying. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you telling me that the Bible is not an authoritative source? It is not my opinion, it is what it says. So explain why the Bible says can it not be noted?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your speculation about how somebody else might be motivated by the Holy Bible as you interpret its passages is just that: speculation, in its purest form. Such speculation and personal opinion has no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia article. ---Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep me in the loop, please.

If this sort of thing continues to happen, after your nor-3, please let me know. Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Who's this?

Markmark12 (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Who's what? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You with a Question

Thank you for explaining. Now for the question :) Are you stating there is no way to insert a comment into the article that Magic is forbidden in the Bible? I mean there should be a way to may that be know. It is not my POV it is in the Bible, and the person who wrote the book is a Magician correct? So is there no way to state this in a note? To make this fact known?

Thanks for any advise.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. It is your interpretation of that passage of Scripture, being used to impeach the judgement of a subject-matter expert, based on your speculation that said expert is possibly prejudiced because (in your opinion) his profession is forbidden. That's original research and synthesis of the worst kind, and has no place here whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand.

So Based on what you are telling me, I look up Moses and the Bible is the Reference, what he did and what happened correct? So, why can it not be stated the Magic is forbidden. How can this be a mere interpretation. I mean it states it. I see it, are you stating you read the the same thing and believe it means something else? That is like me saying I don't agree that tha hair on moses head was x number of inches long and the article is mere speculation on Moses and interpretation. If the rule holds true for this article does it not hold true for Moses? Not everyone is Chrstian or Jewish but the Bible is being used as the authoritative source of information. Could you please let me be able to understand why it is ok in the Moses article to use the Bible and truly it is mere speculation since there are millions who don't believe in God but my little note is reverted? Can you honestly say my little note is worse then an an entire article based on the Bible and mere speculation?

This does not seem fair to me, I am not saying WV Grant is a saint, but I think the article should be based on fact and if the Moses article (just one example) can use the Bible and have mere speculation in it, why cannot my little note quote the Bible?

I don't mean to be a pain about this, I am sorry but this does not seem like the same rules are being applied and I would like to know why. I mean, I only added one sentence as a side note. Look at the Moses article.

If you could please explain. I would really like to know. Both are all speculation. If you delete all the articles that use the Bible as a reference point great! But I cannot quote it and others do? What I say is speculation and what they says is not? I really don't understand.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing for which the Holy Bible is a source used in Wikipedia, is as to the actual text of the Bible; and then, we are required to carefully cite what translation(s) are being used. It is not a reliable source for anything outside itself. We don't say, "Moses was this and that, because the Bible says so." We say, "Moses is described in the following passages of the Bible as this and that" and cite chapter, verse and translation. We then add what other traditions say about him.

Your post, by contrast, makes an unsourced accusation based on what is (in my opinion) a completely and utterly false misinterpretation of yours of two Old Testament passages warning against the use of people claiming to be actual sorcerers, diviners, etc. (which James Randi has never claimed to be in any way), to impeach a man who is an acknowledged expert in his field, in an article about a third party. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Chandler School

Mike, would appreciate your views on the talk page discussion. We have another COI editor exhibiting ownership of this article and an inability to understand reliable sources. I fear that if I stay involved, I will say something that I will later regret. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite's

Well if you look though my talk page you will see someone told me that was the proper way to do it. I was trying to be constructive. Was the Cite fixed? I actually don't understand the massive issue that seems to be happening over a few edits I did.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone told me to put in That was this morning. If I was in error to follow the suggestion I am sorry. From what the person told me I thought you were suppose to remove the existing Cite. I did not remove it from the bottom I was trying to be careful and just place it where I could not verify it, that's all. If I seem to have offended you in some way I am sorry.

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation needed/fact tag is used when there is no source for the assertion. It is not a signal that the link is bad; there is a "deadlink" tag for that. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not want you to think I lied to you. It is here, on this persons talk page: GeorgeLouis

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, at User talk:GeorgeLouis you were told to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that is what I did by not removing the text and just stating a cite was required. I am a very trusting person and I try to be fair and that is what I thought I was doing. Sorry if you disagree...

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Learning

I should be very grateful if you could find the time to check my edits on the article Institute for Learning I don't feel they are remotely controversial or partisan, I have no axe to grind either way and no association or connection with teaching whatsoever, I have no personal interest in the article's subject but wish to help maintain a neutral tone with reliable secondary sources conforming to MOS. User talk:Socialmedium seems to think otherwise!Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Barr for POTUS

What do you think about IPs adding Roseanne Barr running for POTUS to her article since she announced it on The Tonight Show? [7] —Mike Allen 07:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Phelps Foundation

Over at AfC, we have this article sitting in our queue. However, it appears that you salted the topic a while back and the page cannot be created by us. Furthermore, it seems that the page has already been deleted three separate times in the past. I tried tagging it for CSD again based on this, but it was declined. It seems like a reasonable article and I'm curious why it got salted. Also, what should we do with this article to get it out of our list of articles to review? Thanks! Topher385 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). I'll let Mike make the call on unsalting but I'll say that it's extremely unfortunate that the first version of this article was created by User:MichaelPhelpsFoundation. Experienced Wikipedians have a very low tolerance for "self promotion" and that has in the past hampered the addition of subjects that may be notable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment from another (talk page stalker): the reason I declined a CSD on this page while at AfC is that it was a G4, which only applies where the article has previously been deleted at AfD. I didn't form a view on whether it qualified for A7 or G11, because I don't think we normally speedy pages at AfC for those reasons, just decline to move them to the mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

About speedy tagging AFC submissions I would agree. We just simply don't move them to article space. As to whether or not the content itself would be speedyable, I think it falls short of G11 and the original G11 tagging was probably based on the creator's username. (ie his username is the same as the article name so he must be spamming) As far as A7 goes, "notability" is not inherited but "significance" perhaps can be. An article on an organization created by a "highly notable" person should be discussed at AFD before being deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why, Ron? That's a bad case of WP:NOTINHERITED if I ever heard one! The Foundation at best should be a paragraph or two in Phelps' article; it has no notability of its own. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And you may be right, perhaps a mention in the Phelps article is all that is warranted right now, I haven't done a search for supersources. The point I was trying to make is that "importance or significance" which is the bar an article has to clear to survive an A7 is not the same as "notability" and WP:NOTINHERITED only applies to "notability". This organization was created by a notable athlete so the article should be kept would be a non-argument in an AFD but it should be enough for it to at least go to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Now at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Candidate wives

This didn't seem encyclopedic to me. This is the first I've heard of Family of Origin. If you're still working on politics articles, you might want to look at these and those of the rest of the spouses. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay

Simple enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Community Standards: OE contribution

In compliance with Wiki guidelines that you should receive notification: your failure to adhere to Wiki policies and guidelines has been escalated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Optical_Express_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatthecyberhate2 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This sockpuppet account of a banned user has been blocked for obvious reasons by another editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links in W.V. Grant article

Hello, Since you find fault in everything I do with the W.V. Grant article I wanted you to know that this is a dead link, and wanted to ask you how long dead links may remain as cite's not just here but for my own personal knowledge. Can they remain indefinitely so long as they were retrieved once years ago in good faith? Derren Brown: Miracles for Sale, broadcast 25-04-2011 on Channel 4 at 9pm, viewable online at http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-specials/4od/player/3182173 (dead link)

Have a good weekend.

Al akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

Hi OrangeMike, Hope your weekend was good! I have a verifiable secondary source about that diploma that Randi the magician says was fake. So if the information is not research properly in the book. I cannot see a reason to leave the quote and then dispute the quote. I think it best to remove it completely. I actually spent a few minutes to find out the name of the school was changed. If Randi was not just trying to sell books, could he not have found out this information as well? I don't want to be judgmental here but he should have been able to find out this fact. Do you agree?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No; that's not how we do it. Leave the Randi quote, but add the information that Randi misunderstood or misidentified the school in question. That's how we maintain neutral point of view: leave all the information there, for the reader to decide whether Randi was acting in bad faith or merely made a human error. The degree is not the point of the article, or of Randi's writings about Grant; it's a side issue to which you have given undue emphasis. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tax Problems

Hi Orange Mike, OK If you would like to leave a lie and then an the truth, I can live with that because it will be somewhat neutral but could you please EXPLAIN why the TAX information was re-inserted into the top of the article? This means that this information is located in two seperpare locations and I do not believe this is at all an Neutral Point of View correct? I am pulling it out again, and if you reinsert it with a revert explain why it has to be listed twice and once on the top as well in the tax fraud area. I do NOT believe my edits are incorrect and I do not know why people keep warning me about a block.

I think I am a team player. If I am wrong, please explain. Thanks!

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

His criminal record is a major part of his biography, and belongs in the lede as well as in the body of the article. You're doing the equivalent of removing the fact that he's a minister from the lede, on the grounds that it's in the body of the article! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, Al, you're merely proposing to do that; as of the time I typed those words, you had not done so, and I want to be fair to you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMike, I am sorry I looked at this version and it was not there, I thought it was just inserted. I try to be really fair when I looked here I did not see it, that is all, so I did not understand why it had to be inserted twice.

Here is the text I was looking at:

W.V. Grant, whose real name is Walter V Grant Jr., is an American televangelist whose ministry has been based in and around the Dallas, Texas area.

In 1983 Walter V Grant Senior died and Wv Grant took over Soul's Harbor Church and he expanded its ministry later renaming the church as "Eagles Nest Cathedral".[1] In l987, Grant purchased 28 acres and built the "Eagle's Nest Family Church," and continued pastoring the 5000 seat church until 1996.[1]

Grant was involved in faith healing, and was investigated often for "faking" supposed healings. James Randi explained that Grant had notes of ailments of auidence members before the show, a "sleight of hand" trick to make a leg appear to grow, put members of the audience who walked in in wheel chairs before the event (then asking them to stand and walk) hot reading and cold reading techinques.[2] Randi also exposed that Grant's wife had gathered information about members of the audience, and the information as relayed to WV via slips of paper in a Bible he read during his presentations.[2]

Al

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No biggie; the article has been edited quite a few times since 2005, and some versions did omit mention of the tax problems from the lede (we've had an organized whitewash campaign coming from Grant's own blog within the past year or two, among other things). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

May be a no biggie to you but it is becoming to me. Why every time I do an edit, I am threatened with a block and everyone jumps on me? And the last warning was, I will be blocked without further warning. Come on, I am trying to do a good job here, I don't think I deserve this kind of treatment.

Now I left comments on the talk page, I actually don't how to cite an employee of the college, but because everyone says this guy is a fraud (not just here) and I keep seeing unexplainable wonderful things happen (he is in my state a few more days) I went back to watch again and again, there is no way this stuff is fake, he may have "issues" but I cannot find fault in any miricle I saw.

Bringing me to the question I left on the talk page, a women came in last night and with doctor reports before and after. I have a copy I want to show my mom. It shows her spine was healed. Can a doctor's report be used or does it not count because I asked for a copy.

I also called the College to get a confirmation but I do not know if I can cite an employee of a college or how to do it.

Al

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the things you cite is verifiable published information from a reliable source. Such material cannot be used in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Citations

Hi OrangeMike, perhaps you can help me, but what's up with Wikipedia and it locking citations that reference Facebook posts. Is it not appropriate to link to Facebook? I can't find anything in the help files that clarifys this. What does a locked citation actually do? TBMforeverNowhere (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is in the category of blogs and other user-created content: not considered a reliable source for much of anything. I'm not sure, though, what you mean by "locked" citations. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have guessed 'locking' was a typo for 'blocking', except it was repeated. Maybe he's quoting someone. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well no, a little icon appears beside the citation (a pad lock icon). So what happens when Facebook is the ONLY source. Is it better to NOT use a Facebook citation and just refer to it (ex, On October 21, the band posted on their Facebook profile...) or it is it better to just leave it out completely. Granted information in question might not be worth reporting, but other times its really important information and there is no other source. I'm mostly referring to living biographies, rather then articles based on data such as Carbon Dioxide. Thanks! Jason (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That means the article is protected, usually to a streak of vandalism. What you do in that case is put the information on the article's talk page, with a link to where you got it. What we can cite from Facebook is limited, basically, to stuff of the "the band's official Facebook announced that..."; and we can't even do that unless it's 1)encyclopedic content, not hypertrivia; and b) dead solid certain that this is the band's official site, not some kind of fansite. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro forma ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. In writing an explanation of the ongoing dispute regarding articles related to Heroes in Hell, including mention of some aspersions thrown at you by an editor claiming to be Janet Morris, I brought up your name in my post to ANI. You may or may not wish to comment on this unpleasant matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Universities in Washington Ranking

Hi Orange! I just wanted to mention that even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universities in Washington Ranking exists, it shows as a red-link in the AfD template you left at Universities in Washington Ranking. This is obviously due to a minor typo or something of the sort, but nothing jumps out at me when I view the source. Perhaps you can take a look.  -- WikHead (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The link is correct, if you click on it you are taken to the AfD. Try clearing your cache - that should turn it blue. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right John, thanks for the (stalking) reply. I'm not too sure about the browser cache though, as I've been experiencing a lot of connection related trouble and lag with both Wikipedia and the tool server over the past day and a half or so... often very slow, lots of time-outs, 404s, truncated pages, articles displaying without their style-sheets, etc. We're told not to concern ourselves with performance issues as such, so I guess if I twiddle my thumbs long enough, things will eventually get back to normal ;). Stay well, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Aleks de Carvalho

I see where voted to delete at an AfD a couple days ago and the article was deleted. Well, it is back and was denied a speedy delete. I just put it up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleks de Carvalho (2nd nomination). Is this the same thing you saw? Bgwhite (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior version, the copyvio, was quite different. This is just a routine bio of a non-notable performer. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Foul

Mike, I have everyone on my case when I try to anything on that W.V. Grant article without a cite, NOW someone else adds data without a cite? I would say that is quite unfair to me. Exactly what is going on, does someone not like this guy, has something againt me or what is going on... If I cannot add information without a cite, why can others without any complaints?

Please explain this to me. I think it is because people have a preconviced opinion that this guy is no good, and that would be editing from a Negative point of view. Not letting me add anything that would counter would make me to believe this even more.

Instead of being total neutral as I always am, my conception is this article is intentionally being re-written with a negative point of view.

Case in point is the Randi's statement that the degree is fake when it actually does not matter at all, and the School's name was changes but I cannot find a place to cite. Now others add more negative stuff with no cite at all?

Come on Mike what's really up?

Al

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What specifically are you objecting to, Al? Your most recent complaints are so vague that I can't figure out what you're unhappy about (unless it's the removal of the "nyah, nyah, Randi was wrong" passage). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Patterson (comedian) (2nd nomination)

So... you're going to make me work? Okay. I will bring it to a point where you will happily withdraw. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Harsh Deletion?

I created an article at User:Forcrist and asked that it might be moved to a standalone article, Cindy Williamson, which you did (and for which I am thankful). However, another editor — Amatulic — apparently summarily deleted the article with the note "A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)"

However, if you actually look at the article I imagine you will agree that the deletion was unfair. I had a number of links showing articles and websites that referred to Cindy's work, and showed examples.

Do I have any recourse? If you agree that the deletion was overly-harsh, are people like you able to undo this action?

Thanks ahead of time for any actions you take or advice you care to give. (I really do want to learn how to do this well.)

Warmly, Don Huntington (Forcrist (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

isaac asimov

Looking at the listing for his birth place, it's listed as Petrovichi, Russian SFSR. While yes, it is historically, Belarussian, it was, at the time, part of the Socialist Republic and not part of a cooperative state of the Republic. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But the people of Petrovichi, the article makes clear, were 50/50 mixed ethnic Belorussians and Jews. It seems clear that if we acknowledge such a concept as a "Belorussian Jew", then a Jew from Petrovichi would be such a person. The momentary boundaries of the still-chaotic Soviet-Union-in-the-making should not govern what is a cultural, not a political, category. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ctwomen

Could you either undo your block of Ctwomen, or let me do it? I'm going to try talking with them, and I had just convinced Reaper to undo his block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to do that, because they are clearly a spamusername with a Cause, and I'm afraid if we unblock them completely we will send a message that the role account and spamming are acceptable behavior. However, if you do unblock, and take them under your wing, I'm not gonna get whiney or threaten to tell Jimbo on you or anything. I'm just cynical about people who Don't Get It about Noble Causes in particular. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll unblock myself, try to "take them under my wing", and attempt to get them to change their name and follow policy with personal charm. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I am honored to award you this Barnstar for your work in catching my typos and your valued assistance in bringing Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers to life for the community. It is hoped that newcomers will benefit from WP:NewbieGuide for years to come. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell Dispute Resolution

Despite my attempts to narrow the focus of the issues that are ongoing in Heroes in Hell by raising a very specific copyright issue at Dispute Resolution where you were not directly involved, you have been mentioned by Mzmadmike in the discussion. I am sure you are weary of issues surrounding this, like I am, but I'm just letting you know because Mzmadmike hasn't. The Dispute Resolution page can be found here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless something I've had something to do with comes into the discussion, I'm staying out of it, since my very existence seems to serve as an orange flag to certain COI editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

NTEC

How was the NTEC, Inc. page advertising? G11 states that An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. I believe my page for NTEC was written from a neutral point of view. I was adding more sources from around the web fully flesh out the page and I disagree with its deletion. It's purely informational and NTEC is a non-profit anyway, so why would they need to advertise? Oodleday (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Promotion is not exclusive to commercial entities. Wikipedia is not here to promote your noble cause; in particular, language like "NTEC's facility is designed to provide its program companies with an entrepreneurial and collaborative environment, where founding teams interact with seasoned professionals, service providers and capital providers to address strategic and tactical issues" clearly marked this as promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that most of the text was lifted from the organisation's website. Websites exist to promote. QED. – ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Veriss1's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Veriss (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispensationalism

I was completely unsure how to handle that edit. I didn't know if they knew what they were talking about, but it did look dubious. --Confession0791 ^talk 22:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a persistent fringe theory among certain parties, primarily fundamentalist Christians, that the term "Jew" does not mean what most Jews of my acquaintance think it means, for example, but something else entirely. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about British Israelism? --Confession0791 ^talk 02:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It's a species of fundamentalism, combined with some odd ideas about blood and Judah. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Having been informed that a user self-identifying as Janet Morris was indef-blocked last year for sockpuppetry and related misbehavior, and noting substantial similarities in the editing behavior of that editor and Guarddog2, I've opened another ANI discussion. The discussion inevitably involves their accusations against you. While I expect you are unlikely to be interested in rejoining the discussion, I am alerting you to its existence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-Fiction Book Notice

In regards to the ANI Notice by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I wanted to make you aware that I've decided to write a book about the entire episode and that I'm gathering information. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... could be "interesting", given your obvious conflict of interest that runs as a thread throughout the entire thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a professional writer. When I'm writing, my bias is parked on the mantel, beside the urn that contains Sam's ashes. That's why people are willing to pay me. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Joe Sweeney (sports agent, writer)

Good morning- I came across Joe Sweeney (sports agent, writer). You may want to take a look. Also there is a possible COI. Nice write up about the Chicago Meetup in the recent Signpost and nice photo!-ThanksRFD (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

DeleGate

Hi Mike, I've closed your AfD[8] and removed the AfD tag from DeleGate (networking). It was direct copyvio, so, I G12'd it instead. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi again, the copyvio has been resolved, so I have reinstated the AfD tagging and such. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice

I have opened an AN/I notice on the conduct of UrbanTerrorist, and some comments made to you by the user in question have been mentioned. You can reach the AN/I discussion here.

(I sympathize with your unwillingness to participate in these discussions, so I'm not expecting you to participate. Just a courtesy notice.) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

UAA notice

Hey, did you intend to put the notice you placed at Talk:Christian-New_Age_dialogue on a user talk page instead? (Apologies if I'm just mistaken, but it looked like a possible whoops.) Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Come hang out with us!

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap. I hope you'll join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anita Thigpen Perry

RE your comment "University schools of this, that and the other thing, even major ones, are named or renamed after millionaires, politicians, their relatives, etc., all the time. Such naming rights are sold in the marketplace for cash donations, and said naming is not evidence of notability." You are right that university schools are often named after major donors, a kind of selling of the naming rights. (In most cases, the donor is already notable, for the things he/she did to become rich enough to endow a school, for example the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA). However, that was not the case with the TTU school of nursing; she didn't "buy" that designation with money. The school was named that in 2008 "to honor first lady of Texas, Anita Perry," because she was first lady and a nurse.[9] BTW you claimed that schools are often named after the relatives of politicians, but I can't think of a single example where a school was named for the relative of a politician who had done nothing to deserve it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more likely to happen to highways and such, because there are more of them; but I've seen it happen in the South, that a school is named for the momma or granddaddy of a powerful figure, such as a Speaker of the House, chairman of the relevant committee, etc. Specifically, in the Perry case I still see nothing to indicate that there was anything going on besides flattering the wife of a powerful man who was not afraid to cut budgets regardless of the effect on education. "First Lady" is just a patronizing code for "wife of notable person"; but I lost that discussion, so I move on. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply re my dispute over Jo Russell's page

How do I find out which bits are not allowed on WIKI.. HughPugh just deletes EVERYTHING that is fact... and makes up some of his/her own nonsense. and every time we change it to REPORT THE FACTS , he deletes it again with incorrect information. The version he deletes is just FACT. But now he is threatening me and leaving us with an incorrect page about my client and leaving out stuff which is FACT. Why on earth has he/she got the right to edit my clients page anyway when he knows zero information about her. All the info WE put on there IS VERIFIABLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyB (talk • contribs) 16:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Put the reference sources to be used for verification on the talk page of the article (i.e., Talk:Jo Russell). If items are wrong, tell us how they are wrong, don't just take stuff out. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, treat it like it's a research paper where you have to list sources for all your information. Some examples of good sources are books, newspaper articles, and magazines. The Wikipedia requirement for reliable sources makes for a better encyclopedia, but it also protects your client since it protects the article from negative unsourced comments. Cloveapple (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone likes flattery...

...and when you come to royalty you should lay it on with a trowel, said Disraeli. The same evidently applies to heads of department. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What? Now you object to statements of fact?

Statements of fact are not disruptive editing. Adding a note, about the person making the accusations is not disruptive editing. The quality is of the article is terrible as is and is not balanced at all.

Could you explain why you consider this disruptive editing? Every thing I placed in the article is a statement of fact from Randi's article on wikipedia.org so what is wrong with adding a note considering his beliefs?

Did you take the time to read his article?

akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack on a subject matter expert because of your opinions on how his religious beliefs affect his reporting has no place in an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Henchmen & TJLS cat

Hello Mike:

As I understand the results, 4 of the 6 Repubs were retained. Are the 4 retained now endorsed as the voters' henchmen?

That's a matter of interpretation (all of the Democrats were retained). In the one race here in the Milwaukee area (Darling vs. Pasch), the results reflected the ability of the Rep's backers to pump a mindbogglingly large amount of money into expensive television, radio, direct mail, billboard, and other advertising to grossly distort the voting record of her opponent. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WRT the TJLS category, is it appropriate for one category to simply contain a subcategory? I've had some experience in this, but hardly enough to know if this leads to WP:OC. My experience was with an SPA who created lots of categories like "People of XYZ Law School" which then contained a few names, and then the SPA added the category as a See Also to the notable people section in the article. Best regards. --S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was a little worried about that myself, but saw no alternative if both the cats were to fall into their respective trees (i.e., "People from colleges and universities in California" as opposed to "Colleges and universities in California"). You will note that I did not then create subcats for faculty and alumni, since the notable TJLS faculty seems to consist of only one person. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Joe Sweeney

My recent article was deleted because it was considered autobiographical/self promotion. On the contrary, I looked for more articles to write and wanted to find someone with my same last name because it interested me to do that. I have known about this man who was the agent for some of the most famous athletes/people in the country (Bob Costas, Brett Favre, Robin Yount, etc.) and was a bestselling author because he was so often written about in my home state. I am not (to my knowledge) related to him. If there is a problem with the facts in the article or the importance of the subject, I will try to discuss it, but I do not know how I can self-promote someone I do not know personally. I am simply trying to add worth articles to wiki and a best seller with my last name seemed like an apt one for me to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipsweeney (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tip; the deduction was obvious (and wrong). The article as written did not contain any links to reliable sources, depending instead on the subject's own website, amazon.com, and other notoriously unreliable sources. Remember also that Notability is not contagious; being the agent for a notable person does not make this guy notable. I'd suggest you rewrite this one in a sandbox, using more reliable sources; and if there are no such sources, consider what this says about the guy's notability. Your fellow cheesehead, --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine but, for the record, I am not related to the man. I just want that to be clear because I have made mistakes on the notability front on wiki, but never self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipsweeney (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

violation of username policy

this account appears to violate username policy, its called "IHateBotsAlot".DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That seemed to me to be too borderline a case to justify the use of the immediate blocking procedures. They could just be Magnus, Robot Fighter fans. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

D-Scribe

Hi Orangemike,

As I promised in this prior conversation, I wanted to give you a heads that I finally got around to stripping out the copyright issues, at least as far as I can tell, from the D-Scribe Digital Publishing article. I really want to get it out of my user space so I'm ready to go live with it and watch how it does. Let me know if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks! CrazyPaco (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Headaches. Any cure?

A very recent problem I have found, and one that forces me to the arduous page-by-page-by-page one-by-one-by-one-by-one regular Google search, is that in a very recent turn of events, Google News Archives is no longer user friendly. Used to be I'd punch in a search patrameter and could see news sources back to the 1800's. Now if I punch in a search term, it looks to the last few days and no further. Even worse, the advanced search parameters seem set to allow a decent search, [10] but they do not, and lead to seemingly negative results. For example, before it became non-functional, a news search for "Jeffrey Sanzel"+"Theater" would give a 1989 theater review of one of his works.[11] Now, and inserting the same terms and asking for any results, I get zilch.[12] And when using those same terms with the very buggy Google news advance search, I again get nothing.[13] And worse, even when searchong with the knowledge of the timespan to search and the news source to search, still nothing.[14] This flaw in a non-functonal news search is being stated by other at AFD as "I found no sources in a Google News search". This good faith statement can be 100% true, but be still be incorrect... reflective only of the Google advance search being broken and not that sources are not existent. The most diligent of BEFORE fails when the search engine is broken. Do you know of any solution? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I fear Google News Archive is weaning us gradually, to prepare us for the day when it is simply abandoned entirely. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No doubt it is preferred by the accountants that those using the search engine HAVE to be subjected to the numerous crap links and advertisements when searching for the good. And as far as scans of news articles... I will miss being able to find and use them in articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My recent headache (and no doubt that of other editors) is that I use Internet Explorer because I prefer the editing options offered when updating an article, and caused by my having stayed with IE7 as a slightly quicker browser than IE8. Well, I installed IE8 and now find a news archive button on the left side of a G-News screen. It is not present with IE7. I wonder how many others have bumped into this same quandary, and not know their browser was at fault? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Many people have no choice in the browser they use, so "at fault" is bogus terminology: Google is playing games with us, is all. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

CA Course Help

Thanks, Mike! I'll definitely keep that in mind...just getting started! Cecoker (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As I may have mentioned during training, the Democratic Party of Mississippi article in particular could be a lot longer and more fascinating than it is in its present form. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sesame Street

Thanks. I know that when I'm not feeling at my best is not the best time to use my tools and wondered if in any way it could be seen, sans blp issues, as legitimate humor. It was pretty obvious the editor wasn't here to build a better Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If they want to write for The Onion, they should apply to write for The Onion. I saw it as a bigoted attack on the real, useful, Arab-language kid's programs, implying that anything in the Arabic language was jihadist. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Belling

Although there may be BLP reasons justifying the IP who reverted me [15] (an IP you warned yesterday about a similar edit), the talk page reveals an interesting situation with various IPs objecting to the section. Some may be the same persona as they geolocate to more or less the same area and use the same ISP. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been restored, but maybe we need to semi-protect it as I think there is either sock or meat puppetry going on here. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

IMAGES

I didn't create a wikipedia site for Selena Cuffe. However I did try adding images. If adding the images causes this to convert to an "autobiographical" site then should I just remove them? Please let me know what's needed to remedy. I'm not the most savvy with html so would appreciate assistance from {{adminhelp}} if possible. Thanks (Selenacuffe (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)).

Frankly, we get very nervous when the subjects of articles get involved in editing the article(s) about themselves, since it's so hard to be impartial about oneself. I am bothered in particular by the name of the photo file as provided, which verges on an advertisement. Could you upload the same picture without the gratuitous "courtesy of so-and-so" language? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the photo credit from the article per WP:CREDITS. The bigger problem with File:Selena Cuffe, President & CEO of Heritage Link Brands, LLC.jpg apart from the name (a Commons admin can rename it easily) is the lack of permission to use the file. The source is stated to be Steed Media Group and the author Zondra Hughes, but there is no evidence that either of them (assuming one of them is the copyright owner of the image) has released it on terms suitable for Commons or Wikipedia. Suggest that User:Selenacuffe takes a look at WP:IOWN for guidance as to obtaining and communicating appropriate permissions. – ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all images to return the article back to its original state and submitted the WP:IOWN template to Steed Media Group for the pictures in question. Once complete, they can resubmit the images according to wikipedia guidelines. So I think that's it. Can the site now be turned back to its original state as it is not autobiographical? Thanks! (75.186.1.187 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC))

deletions

not the first time i'm sure someone is asking you about why you deleted one of their entries... tell me... what do i need to do in order to be able to keep an entry... bow... kiss your feet... post my cell number... what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodkine (talk • contribs) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

hello? my second post... you delete in real time and then all of a sudden cant respond when i ask you a diect question? avoidance? guilt? looks like it... so much for all those 'awards' you have... cant even confront a conflicting opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodkine (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We must have reliable sources for content like that you posted. That requirement is not negotiable. (And I have a life; I will not necessarily respond within a few seconds.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

here we go again with the all encompassing buzz phrase "reliable sources." i dont consider "anything published" as reliable.. in fact you should value direct accounts of individuals who actually speak the truth about topics instead of the massive cut and paste articles in here that only lend itself to promoting 'more and more' for the sake of 'more and more' versus truly confirming validity...

you deleted an edit that simply told of an individual's PERSONAL ATTIBUTES... if your wife or gf was "funny" or "had a nice personality," what you're telling me that you wouldn't be able to share that with anyone unless you brought some verifiable sources? really? so that means anytime you opened your mouth to tell someone about her personality, they should slap you in the face i.e. 'delete' what you are saying simply because it isnt published... how can you not see the ridiculousness of that... dont buy into the hype just because someone put some fancy gif file medals next to your name.. have a backbone.. talk to me like a human for Christ sake... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodkine (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Goodkine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My opinion about my wife is my opinion, and has no place in this encyclopedia. We don't use personal opinions, unpublished recollections, and that kind of content, since there is nothing to verify their correctness or falsity. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"We don't use personal opinions" -- how can you say that with a straight face? Don't camoflauge my point by reference my wife analogy, stick to the facts. Personal opinions are pervasive on a medium like this. Just because someone puts a "Washington Post" or "People Magazine" branding on an article, guess what ITS STILL A PERSONAL OPINON.. a PERSON is writing about it. I suggest you find something more relevant to clarify your point. The bottom line is, again, most of the information here IS personal opinion or accounts of activities or indivuduals. Explain to me why if I started an article about, for example, "ABC123 Super Toys," referenced the website, footnoted reviews about the product from "reliable sources," why I couldn't say in the ariticle "ABC123 Super Toys are fun and kids of all ages enjoy them" -- would that get deleted too because no one 'reliable' veriied that they were "fun?" or no one verified that 'kids of all ages' had actually played with them? Are you beginnging to understand now, or are you going to retort with additonal doubletalk about vague policy and places that "dont allow personal opinons" -- gimmie a break mike... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodkine (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand that you don't agree with how this encyclopedia works. So what? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that how they teach you to respond to genuine inquiries regarding policy...? i cited specific examples... and gave you reasons why I am unclear... and your response is "so what?" maybe i'm beginning to see why you can't elaborate on an answer because your PERSONAL OPINION of my communication style clouds your ability to make a sound response... not everyone is going to pat you on the back and say "great job staying up late in front of the computer mike..." some people, like me have a legitimate inquirt as to why the policy seems vague and needs some clarity on vague issues... but if all you got is 'so what' then it actually just proves my point... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodkine (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

An den? Eh, lolo, nuff alreddy; no boddah me k? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

nice. im glad you went with that versus the whole 'primary pillars' thing because that would've came off quite elitist... slavery was a primary piller of the US for a long time... sure glad someone challenged it... anyways braddah mike, i get the whole 'encyclopedia' concept... its just sad that somehow, someway, the TRUE information about someone/something gets lost, and evidently BANNED because of 'lack of support' from 'reliable sources' -- i couldn't stay true to this media with that kind of loose stringing in the weave of this cloth... thank you for making the connection though with the pidgin... bumbye you goin figga out wot i tryin fo say and den you not goin act all mento... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodkine (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with problems

I work at Dallas Baptist University and noticed that we have several alerts on our page. Specifically:

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (August 2011) Click [show] on right for more details.[show]

This article's tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (August 2011)

This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion. (August 2011)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2011)

Can you please help me figure out how to fix the problems? I could not find any specific information on what is wrong with the entries on our page. Do we need to edit the content on the page? And if so, can you tell me what content, specifically should be edited? I appreciate any help you can provide. Klowrie (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Kalie Lowrie

First of all I'd reccommend getting familiar with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy as well as some suggestions and the Frequently Asked Questions for Organizations.

The next step would be understanding that all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on sources that are not connected to the subject of the article. If you look at the article almost all of the references point to either various parts of the school website or to a DBU press release. This is why the article is tagged as needing "citations for verification." Better sources might include books, magazine articles, or newspaper articles. (You can see the full policy on independent reliable sources for more details.)

Orangemike may have additional suggestions.Cloveapple (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Societal attitudes towards pedophilia in Medieval Europe

Hi, I have created this article now (you were talking with me about it at the helpdesk). What do you think ? Are there any obvious ways to improve it ? I don't think there's any synthesis left. Thanks. Simone. (--S Larctia (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

University of Tennessee Health Science Center

I am following up on the note below. The leadership of our organization asked me to redraft the copy on Wikipedia because it does not include enough detailed information about our organization. I did so yesterday, taking time to make sure I was including historical facts about us and data about us today but those edits were removed. Our leadership wanted graphics included also but I was not successful in adding them. Are we not allowed to contribute factual information about our own organization?

[edit]Conflict of interest

Hello 75.145.13.177. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article University of Tennessee Health Science Center, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems: Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors. Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam). Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies. Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC) ‎ Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at University of Tennessee Health Science Center, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Sheila Champlin (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As explained on your talk page, we very very very very VERY strongly discourage people with your kind of conflict of interest from editing articles about your organization. If there are specific items that you feel ought to be in the article, then suggest them on the talk page of the article involved. A total redraft that was acceptable to your boss(es), is almost by definition going to be violative of several of our policies. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC) (used to work for a state university office himself)

Your erroneous statement re conflict of interest...

I admitted to no such thing, nor am I involved in a conflict of interest. I introduced myself to a page. --Jespah 20:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You described yourself as monitoring a group of pages, in a manner that implied you were editing one or more of them on behalf of the subject(s) of those pages. That to me strongly implies a conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

IMAGES CONTINUED

Orange Mike - Can you please advise on the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Cuffe as per below, the site is back to its original state?

Frankly, we get very nervous when the subjects of articles get involved in editing the article(s) about themselves, since it's so hard to be impartial about oneself. I am bothered in particular by the name of the photo file as provided, which verges on an advertisement. Could you upload the same picture without the gratuitous "courtesy of so-and-so" language? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the photo credit from the article per WP:CREDITS. The bigger problem with File:Selena Cuffe, President & CEO of Heritage Link Brands, LLC.jpg apart from the name (a Commons admin can rename it easily) is the lack of permission to use the file. The source is stated to be Steed Media Group and the author Zondra Hughes, but there is no evidence that either of them (assuming one of them is the copyright owner of the image) has released it on terms suitable for Commons or Wikipedia. Suggest that User:Selenacuffe takes a look at WP:IOWN for guidance as to obtaining and communicating appropriate permissions. – ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all images to return the article back to its original state and submitted the WP:IOWN template to Steed Media Group for the pictures in question. Once complete, they can resubmit the images according to wikipedia guidelines. So I think that's it. Can the site now be turned back to its original state as it is not autobiographical? Thanks! (75.186.1.187 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)) (75.186.1.187 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Webpages showing scans of magazines, journals etc

Re your comment at WP:HD of I would like to point out for the record that in this age of Photoshop, nobody should cite to what purport to be scans of newspaper articles and the like when found online, as they may or may not be authentic. I'd say that it depends on the provenance of the website. Many newspapers do have online scans of old articles, as does Flight International. Many out of copyright books are also available online. What I would be wary of, would be an isolated scan of an article, where there is no visible provenance of the original source. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just urging a wise level of caution and paranoia, given some cases I've seen (particularly autobiographies and PR-agent spamming). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Joanna Russ

Firstly, I would dispute that the Russ page is a SF page; it is a bio. I put the tag because, although the name was wikilinked, I don't know who that is and I am sure most other editors wouldn't know without having to check. The sentence could and arguably should have been written "Science fiction writer (name), a friend of Russ [I assume] stated..." But if I erred, sorry. I have to move on and don't intend to engage in a lengthy colloquy. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Take care. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't say it was an SF page, I said it was a page about an SF writer [and somebody who was proud of SF as a genre, to put it mildly]

Sorry, I misunderstood that part. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no big; you're a veteran, make me look like a newcomer here. I'll admit, I know Chip Delany and miss Joanna deeply, so this twitched a raw nerve. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk#Duplicate article.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- John of Reading (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Contested PROD

Your PROD of Shinobi Ninja has been contested. You may wish to consider AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tintern Girls Grammar School

I think that you've been a little bit too enthusiastically indiscriminate in your reversion of User:Tinternschoolsmarketing's edits to the article. The user may have a conflict of interest, but I doubt that they'd be wrong about the headmaster, for example. Besides one paragraph that was a little WP:PEACOCKy, the rest of the edits weren't extremely problematic. With that in mind, I'm restoring what I can of what the user put forward.

The article needs improvement, and if the school is willing to do it within the bounds of wikipedia's policies, I'd welcome it, as would WP:EIA and WP:WPSCH. They clearly just need a little bit of guidance Can I suggest that you stress these points on the user's talkpage? ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 16:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to automatically revert any edits by an admitted marketing/PR account, due to NPOV concerns. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But as I said, they did try to improve the article, and they mostly didn't cross the WP:NPOV line. They're also not hiding their WP:COI (unlike a lot of school article editors). I'd prefer to see the article improved than left as is.

I'm not volunteering to mentor them, but I'll suggest that they get in touch with me via my talkpage if they need some limited help with school article related issues (that article or otherwise). ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Mate, you got it on his/her talk page... Long night? :] ˜danjel[ talk | contribs ] 16:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please Reconsider Deletion of Courageous Persuaders

Subject: Reconsider Deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous_Persuaders

Courageous Persuaders is a nonprofit competition designed to fight the tragic toll underage drinking takes on our teenagers. We are an 11-year-old program wherein high school kids compete for scholarships making TV commercials to warn middle school kids about the dangers of underage drinking. Participating in the creative process has proven to change their hearts and minds and make them more sensitive to the potential dangers. Over 100,000 students have participated to date.

We do not understand your accusation of "Blatant Advertising." Yes, we want people to know about our competition, but we don't understand what makes the history of our competition "Advertising." We aren't selling anything. We are all volunteers. We are also confused about a suggestion by another administrator of "Blatant copyright infringement" as we are meticulous in monitoring trademarks and copyrights. Anything copied was copied from our own website, as we have a page that gave much of the competition's history in a very succinct manor.

Please reconsider. You provide a valuable information resource for students interested in the program. By restoring our entry you could help save lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.59.138 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done

1. Wikipedia does not exist to promote your noble cause.

2. Your obvious conflict of interest means you are the worst possible people to be writing about this organization.

3. We must respect copyrights; just because some anonymous person claims to have permission to use copyrighted content, does not make it legal for us to do so.

4. The language was clearly promotional, and thus failed our requirement of neutral point of view and our ban on advertisements and promotion of anything, commercial or ideological or religious or charitable or whatever.... --Orange Mike | Talk 22:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP's contributions also suggest there's some WP:ADMINSHOP, or quite frankly, spam going on here. On the other hand, elsewhere I have pointed them to WP:CONSENT and WP:GNG. If they can learn to write neutrally, then there's no reason that an organisation promoting adherence to the USA's peculiar sumptuary laws is any less suitable to contribute to their own article than any of the other special interest groups around. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Demi, I live in a state which is perhaps the most tolerant of drunken driving of all the United States, and I've seen far too many of the tragic deaths that result from that excessive tolerance; I don't find the topic even remotely amusing, nor am I amused by your misleading wikilink to sumptuary laws. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the article that you deleted, but what's on your talk page doesn't say anything about drink driving, nor is the link misleading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sumptuary laws are about luxury, in any form (including expensive food and drink). Drunken driving laws are about reckless endangerment of other people. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite (the article is worth reading with an open mind). As for drunken driving laws, neither I nor the IP address came here to discuss those with you, nor made any comment about them, so I'll leave you in peace. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, it looks like the last version of this article (the last 27 edits from 15 January 2009 on up) was deleted as an uncontested PROD and if this request had appeared at REFUND I would have restored it. (barring any copyvio issues with this version) However, the text still looked borderline promotional. If someone who is not connected with this organization wishes to adopt this article and fix it, I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to the incubator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Curse of Ham

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Curse of Ham. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New comments below this section

Subject: Courageous Persuaders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous_Persuaders

I need you to explain to me how you can help modify this web page so that it is not removed. This is non-profit organization that is raising the awareness of teens and drunk driving through schools nationwide. Rather than asking for this page to be deleted, considering this is a non-profit without appropriate Wiki knowledge...how about helping to fix the writings and support the efforts of this organization? What is it that you want them or YOURSELF to do to make sure this page is not removed? What do we do to make sure that we keep the awareness about this organization in Wikipedia? How do YOU want to HELP to insure that our kids are not driving drunk?

Melihoztalay (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Melih Oztalay, Concerned Parent

Hi Melihoztalay. If you look up above there's a discussion going on in the secdtion "Please Reconsider Deletion of Courageous Persuaders."

In that discussion Ron Ritzman has said that if a Wikipedia editor who is not from your group is willing to work on the article, he is willing to move it to an area called the Incubator where it can be worked on until it's repaired enough to be a regular article. (The desire to have an in independent editor is nothing against your group. Wikipedia always strongly discourages people from writing about themselves or their own organization, because it's very difficult to be neutral when writing about a topic close to oneself. Also an established editor would be familiar with Wikipedia's policies.)

Second, it was brought up that the article might have copyright issues.

So there's two things you can do to help the article:

• You can look for a Wikipedia editor willing to work on the article. One way to do this would be to see who had worked on other drunk driving articles and then ask a few if they'd be willing to help. (To see who worked on an article, click the history tab at the top of the article. Then click on the talk link next to their name and ask them. Remember to give them a link to this discussion.)
• Right now Wikipedia probably can't use the text from the website because of copyright laws. You could speak to whoever runs the website and ask them to put a notice on the website that the text is not copyrighted and can be reused. (Someone else in this discussion can tell you the exact license or wording that would need to be on the website.) Cloveapple (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused - can you help?

Hi Orange Mike, re: the request for undeletion: Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Ben_Perryman

I've contacted you as per the instructions on: Wikipedia:Contact_us/Contact_a_user

Although I've enjoyed reading articles on Wikipedia, this is the first time I've tried participating, and despite having used home computers since the 80s and PC-Compatibles since the early 90s I'm finding Wiki rather frustrating and confusing.

I'm am really out of my depth and just trying to do a favour for a friend. The page in question was a friend's (Ben Perryman's) biography page. It was, I was told, created by a former friend of his, and after a disagreement the former friend deleted the page and refuses to reinstate it.

I've double checked and he says it was definitely on Wikipedia.org, but as User:Graeme_Bartlett appears to have looked for other pages with "Perryman" in, I suspect my friend may be incorrect. I can see people (e.g. Graeme) leaving comments as indented bullet points under my request for undeletion but I have no idea how to reply to those comments.

You asked "Besides, why should any editor need contact with the subject of the page?" - I don't know the answer.

I really am not familiar with the rules and bureaucracy of Wikipedia, though I understand why they exist. I don't know the correct ways to do things on here. Could you advise me of what I need to do to?

Many thanks Number6UK (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no record of any Wikipedia article about a Ben or Benjamin Perryman, other than the 19th-century Creek chieftain of that name, either among the extant or the deleted articles. Who is this guy, and why would he be deemed notable enough to have an article about him in an encyclopedia? (I find an obscure teen "actor", and an senior executive search consultant, online; but certainly neither of them qualifies.)

You are the one who said something about not contacting the subject of the article; but we don't do that, since the subject of an article is often not a reliable source, and inevitably is not a impartial source, of information about themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Images and accusations

Agreed - it's amazing how rapidly we have an agenda (or a conspiracy) as soon as we disagree with whoever happens to be on today's particular soapbox. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Academic Colleges Group

I was helping a new user with that article for the past two days in IRC, and now the author is confused why it was deleted. She told me that she didn't intend to use the company for advertsing (though I did warn her that the article can be nominated for AFD or Prod). I did a quick google check and found this reliable source, so the article I think deserves an AFD at least. Thanks Secret ^account 05:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was so full of spamlinks, self-sourcing, glittering generalities, gratuitous honorifics, and meaningless terms ("affiliated with" meaning what?) that I felt it qualified as a G11. The author should burn it down and rebuild, starting with reading WP:CITE. What is her COI, by the way? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

new editor

I'm a new editor on Wikipedia and am working on the article "Model of Managerial Discretion" as a part of my assignment. Thank you for correcting me, i just started writing the same article on my user page first, so once a substantial portion is done i can move it to create a new article. Bluejazz6 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ketsia

What is wrong with the Ketsia article Mike? She is a known artist in Quebec, see http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/societe/culture_comnc/enreg_sonore/palmares/t6_pal_enr_son_2010_an.htm Does a singer have to be known in the USA in order to be considered significant? This is not a personal attack, I just don't understand why a Quebec singer is being given such a tough time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Santiche (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of local vogue minus global notability. Not all charts are created equal, and I'm concerned that these are not what people think of when they hear "Billboard Charts". And "#16 in digital downloads among Quebecois artists for a certain time period" is a pretty feeble claim to fame. I'm not hearing any personal attack from you; we're both working towards following the standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:MGluckLab requesting unblock

Please check if this editor's request meets your requirements for an unblock. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ktrainentertainment

Asking for unblock (after first trying from an IP). I've asked him a question that you might take an interest in. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)