This is an archive of past discussions with User:Orangemike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Mike, I declined your speedy deletion request on Bon Yeon, because books published by a major publishing house (Harper Collins) among others constitutes a claim of notability. I have done no searches to determine if AfD is appropriate or not. LadyofShalott16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I should have said claim of importance instead of notability - anyway, I think it's enough to pass A7, which is of course much lower than GNG. (I'm not arguing that she is - or is not - notable. I may or may not comment in the AfD.) :) LadyofShalott17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thanks for helping at João Gilberto; I'm despairing of being able to get through to this guy. Problem is, his information is almost certainly correct, but between the COI (I've brought up the issue at WP:COIN) and what appears to be marginal English skills, I'm at a loss how to proceed. I don't want to just block the guy, but darn. --jpgordon::==( o )22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you speedy the speedy delete? She says she left the public eye and industry and is no longer WP:NOT. The source no longer supports the article. Some recent vandal was rather nasty circa June 24/2012 and the edits are still viewable in history.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not marginal enough to qualify for a speedy delete, Canoe. I'd say we should let the PROD process take its course. I'm also a little queasy about the one account, User:Kellieanngray, who can't seem to make up her mind as to whether she is actually Chapman herself, or just somebody (presumably somebody named Kellie Ann Gray) purporting to speak for Chapman. --Orange Mike | Talk15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, why Orange yo have deleted my Page? Can you explain to me please? I'm worked hard for to create it. Is possible for an external link? I only wanted to showing resources..delete the links that you don't feel right, but not all the page please. which is my mistake?
Is possible to made a "rewind"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ippocratus (talk • contribs) — Ippocratus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The deleted article Positive Self Talk Against Panic was deleted as clear and unambiguous advertising. There is no place in Wikipedia for advertising. The broken and incoherent English could have been fixed: we've had many valuable contributions from editors whose English is weak; but the advertising content was ineradicable. If you genuinely think this subject is notable (I don't see any evidence of it), then create a new draft article at User:Ippocratus/sandbox and seek feedback from other editors before proceeding further. --Orange Mike | Talk18:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
YoloPolo
"Todd Riser" is not nonsense, he is my friend. And I was not "attacking" Peridon, I was simply inquiring why he deleted my page. Now had I been given time to actually WORK on the page, I could have supplied sources that would have made it very legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolopolo (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit. That "article" was pure and complete nonsense, childish babel of the silliest sort. I will not bother to repeat the insult you threw at Peridon for discarding your nonsense. --Orange Mike | Talk00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike - I love the ORANGE! Great pic! With regard to the article I wrote, "New York College of Health Professions," I do take your comments seriously and constructively. Please note that new references have been added where citations were requested. However, I left the "citations needed" indicators in place until approved. Also, in an attempt to satisfy the other two notices which have been up for over two months, revisions to several sentences have also been edited to make them less promotional. I can not find any other sentences without substantiation that could be considered promotional but would appreciate your opinion and or suggestions. I have also written to the editor that put them up asking if there are any other specific sections of the article that need to be revised. Please note that since this college is institutionally accredited, all claims made by the college in their catalogue, website or other literature are continuously monitored and approved by the accrediting agency, I.E. the New York State Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education. To the best of my knowledge, no unsubstantiated claims have been made here.
In summary and in good faith, I am a relatively new editor and am trying to do everything possible to comply with Wikipedia rules, regulations and guidelines. I hope that the current revisions satisfy all concerns. If not, I would appreciate some specifics which I can address. Thank you for your help. Dkolarek (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I took a rather rough axe to it. Generally any kind of directory listings are ok sources to verify a fact, but not to confirm that something is worth including. Promotionalism was still problematic and prolific. The article could be improved with a history section and more information in the infobox, but it's an ok stub as it is now. The pictures are fantastic. Thanks for contributing them. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Codex of Santa Catarina Ixtepeji
Hi Mike- sorry to ask, but I thought someone else might see if this "article" passes notability. Personally, I would say no. Here- Chris Laney. Thanks for your help. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Orangemike I'm back... I'll like to know would this other article be able to aproved kNERO on Wikipedia? --Sarah 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
So I'll say...that's a no.. lol --Sarah 05:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Kennedy (talk • contribs)
Copyvio
I notice Arkatakor's suggestion on Talk:Vassula_Ryden#Further_Comments is also a copyright violation, and a number of Arkatakor's edits are a direct copy and paste out of sources (a number of which I also have removed as copyvio). I think an editor perceived as neutral, such as yourself, would have be able to make a better attempt at convincing Arkatakor that copying and pasting sources when not in a relevant quotation is not acceptable, (my own attempts on Arks user talk page got reverted). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that I deleted YMCA Victoria Youth Parliament back in 2008, but my first reaction is to notice that there are no actual references in the articles like YMCA Youth Parliament: just links to the YP's own websites. WP:ADVERTISING is not just about commercial ventures: promotional language and boasting are not unique to for-profits. There's a good essay you should read: "Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause". If the parliaments are not notable, they could be deleted on that basis, although YMCA Victoria Youth Parliament was deleted for the promotional tone (apparently ganked straight out of your own promotional materials). Then, we also run into the conflict-of-interest problem: "the media team for the program" is a definition of the sort of person who should not be writing this article, if such an article should even be in an encyclopedia. If these programs are notable, then there should be lots of press coverage available for somebody to write an impartial and neutral article. Don't stroke past Youth Parliament Governors' egos by listing them in an encyclopedia: tell us whether any of these blokes have gone on to actual careers in the real parliaments! --Orange Mike | Talk12:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. If I wrote an article to fill that space, your recommendation would be to only include attributes about the program that are represented in the media?
For example, a 'notable' aspect of the program this year was a survey that determined that all Youth Parliaments across Australia should debate the same Marriage Equality issue. The result of which was majority support for some form of marriage equality.
I take your point that we shouldn't list of Youth Governors except that for the past 4 years at least Youth Governors in Australia have aligned themselves with causes and pushed for particular outcomes. Should those not be listed in an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia?
Mike-I did some research. In the book "Letters from the Brothertown Boys (Andrea Bruckner&Caroline Ander, AuthorHouse, 2011, pg. 26, footnote#11) William Fowler served in the Civil War in the Union War. He died of his wounds in Sulpher Springs, Virginia on October 10, 1862. That has to be added to the article. Thanks-RFD (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay-on page 26 of the book William Fowler was refered to as "the old territorial assemblyman." It sounded like he enlisted in the Union Army at that age-thanks-RFD (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like it has to be the same guy! Just add it into the article, properly footnoted (and thank you). (Sadly, in the same war, units of both the Eastern and Western bands of the Ani-Yunwiyah were fighting for the Secessionist side, although comparatively few of them saw combat.) --Orange Mike | Talk19:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Mike-I googled William Fowler Brothertown Indians and came up with information about William Fowler. I thank you for letting myself help out-RFD (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you please see this discussion? I am trying to find out: why is it invalid to reference the shows if a podcast is lacking, when it would not be if there was a podcast? Are there similar rules for referencing out of print books? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sovereign citizen movement
Quick question re: your recent edit. I didn't see the show in question, and can't be sure from reading the plot synopsis cited: did the show "inaccurately represent[ed] the movement as arguing that by changing one's name..." or did it "represent[ed] the movement as inaccurately arguing that by changing one's name..."? If the former was the actual intent, is there a source that it was an inaccurate representation, i.e. that the movement does not make that argument? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no source I can find anywhere which claims that sovereigns make that assertion. (I've worked for at least one government agency where we had a sovereign trying to "revoke" his birth certificate.) The sovereigns in the show all were changing their names to things like "Boomshakalaka" and the like: I am not making this up! --Orange Mike | Talk02:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yeah, I did notice the weird names in the plot summary, but didn't make the connection. And my "reading" of the possible intent seemed entirely possible. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your pointers and many thanks for getting in touch. I am sorry if my writing came across as too promotional as I did not intend for the tone of the information I added to the page to be like that in any way.
I edited the information with the view to update details which were not quite up-to-date and in some cases were not quite accurate. I simply added to the existing information from the original website used by the original user: for example, by including another section to the page and adding links. I also added a new logo to a page which is linked to the edited page, as the one used was out of date too.
I have looked though Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and have applied for a change of username which should hopefully go through imminently.
attribution of comment on Man in the High Castle talk page
Hi OrangeMike, I apologize for the confusion regarding my recent comment on the discussion page. I inserted my reply in front of an already existing unsigned comment, because I wanted to respond to the signed portion above. I guess that's bad form? So I've moved my comment (which was signed) to the bottom of the section, and hopefully lessened the ambiguity there. The preceding words confused me, but I didn't mean to alter or take credit for someone else's words. Erikacornia (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the clearly promotional material that they had on their user page, and left a welcome in its place, but User:Vayuproduction seems quite like the sort for which you have a special place in your heart. Just FYI, not asking for anything to be done yet, but that account is one that seems like it is headed in a bad direction. -- Avanu (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
His face? If we've got a solid fair-use, public domain or properly-licensed picture, why not, given that he is dead? His armorial bearings? Those in the article now are from Commons and perfectly sound, so no copyright issue is involved. --Orange Mike | Talk17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well there are several out there. I just dont trust myself to know their copyright status and I thought you would correctly check which one we can properly use. Kittybrewster ☎00:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Since he's dead, we might be able to make a claim of fair use; but we always strive to find a licensed picture first. There's no reason we can assume that the picture you linked to as an example, for instance, is other than fully copyrighted. --Orange Mike | Talk14:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike! I wanted to know if you'd be interested in being the 4th interviewee for the Signpost interview series I've been working on. I would supply you a list of about 20 questions on-wiki, and then you'd have 1-2 weeks to respond to them at your leisure. I would organize the questions for logical flow and trim some parts for succinctness but otherwise it would be entirely your words as you crafted them. You're one of the most consistent and vocal opponents of paid editing, so I'd really like to have your voice in the interview series. Let me know! Cheers, Ocaasit | c19:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again! I'm so glad you want to be grilled for the series. Just kidding, it should be a very friendly and hopefully insightful process. The 20 or so questions are here: User:Ocaasi/Orangemike. You can answer them at your leisure, on-wiki of off-wiki, ideally in the next 1-2 weeks. I may organize the questions for logical flow and trim some parts for brevity, but your words and meaning will remain wholly intact. Looking forward to reading your responses! Oh, and if you think any of the questions are biased or there are questions you wish I had asked, feel free to make suggestions or voice whatever views you think will contribute to a great interview. Cheers! Ocaasit | c16:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks great so far. Love your candor. Are you interested in trying to get this out for this Monday's signpost? If so, I just need a finished draft by tomorrow morning. If not, we'll go for the following week. Ocaasit | c18:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic. Just by chance, was there anything you wanted to add about your personal COI efforts, such as at COI/N? Maybe a story about an article you cleaned up...? Ocaasit | c22:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that update. Just out of curiosity, would you rather be known as 'The skeptic' or 'The protector' or something else... it's just a name for the interview title. Ocaasit | c22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to call you 'the cynic' but I fear people will assume that is my editorializing. So I'm tempted go with skeptic, which is less colorful but also less inflammatory. Unless... you can tell me in a quick sentence why you would call yourself 'cynical' about paid editing, and I'll weave it into the introduction. You can see the progress coming along [[5]]. Two last questions. One, do you want to be referred to as Orangemike or Orange Mike? Two, could you a final query: "Do you think there's a risk from setting a more strict policy that it drives paid editing further underground?" You can answer here and I'll port it over to the two other pages. Thanks Mike! Ocaasit | c02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I was suggesting that you could use "... more skeptical, if not downright cynical..." as the title/headline. But "The skeptic" is certainly accurate enough.
1) Orange Mike.
2) Certainly there is a risk, as there is to more active enforcement of any kind of rules. But we have to take a principled stand on the issue, in order to send a clear and unambiguous message; and as it is, it's not like there aren't covert paid editors with less ethics than the CREWE folks, out there messing with our articles every day . --Orange Mike | Talk03:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Great! We had plenty of length so I didn't trim any of your responses (I just put them in a more logical order). I did leave out the Jimbo quote you added, which although quite fitting anticipates the next interview in the series--with Jimbo! Thanks again for making this so pleasant. Let me know if you have any feedback on the interview process or the draft as I put the finishing touches on. Hopefully it will run smoothly this Monday. Ocaasit | c03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw your message to me about the Brittany Binger page. I wonder if you can help.
I never meant to "vandalize" anything. I was just a little sketchy on the rules. If the template parts can't be removed that's fine. I understand the "conflict of interest" on things like the Playboy info, as that is all fact and I get the "Neutral Point of View" thing. However, a couple of "personal" notes listed are incorrect and she would like them changed.
If I can't do it, could you or another editor do it so I don't get accused of vandalism? She needs the line about E!Online and her being a "sports nut" removed. She is not one. Also, she is no longer engaged, so she would like the entire line about being engaged removed as well as the reference link to that information.
Removal of properly-sourced content is vandalism. If she has repudiated what E! says she said, then we need a reliable published source saying so; ditto for the reported engagement. The photo now being used is available and acceptable under our current licensing; the fact that her agency wants to use a different one is a matter of indifference to us. If there is another picture which the copyright owner wants to license for use here, then there could be a discussion: see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Remember, please, that we don't allow the subjects of articles to control how they are described in those articles (and we are indifferent, if not actively hostile, to "re-branding" and similar manipulations); but we are also willing and ready to help correct incorrect content, especially about living persons. The way to do all this is by discussing issues on the talk page of the articles (in this case, of course, that would be Talk:Brittany Binger), not by making changes yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike , could you keep this article on your watchlist? There's an editor with a major conflict of interest, who I fear may still not "get it". The article showed up at WP:Copyright problems with extensive copyvio (only mildly reworked). It was also a complete mess of badly formatted, poorly referenced PR, etc. (as you know, since you attempted to clean it up at one point). Anyhow, I completely rewrote it to avoid it being stubbed and the offending revisions were deleted. Anyhow, the editor's at it again. See my latest comments. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
RE:William Fowler (Brothertown Indian) - "not in citation given"?
There are some significant problems with this. If it's about the tribe and we presume that the person in question was with them at the time given is WP:ORIGINAL. My second problem is that the indicated pages of the fourth and fifth annual reports and collections of State Historical Society don't contain anything about "Green Bay", "Wisconsin" "1831 and 1836" (the pages are about the 1840s-'50s and basicly about Milwaukee, which is at the "Great Lakes" but nothing about moving/arriving there). I also saw you restored the ref for the birth of date, with the 74th page mark, which is incorrect, though as I footnoted within the article, three other pages does back up his 1815 birthdate. Hook facts must be supported by inline sources, and the source given does not appear to support the statement in the article. LajbiHolla @ me • CP16:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how you are reading the BIA document. I am using the page numbers in the actual document, as pictured in the PDF, not the page numbers of the PDF itself. As to the other: my pagination in the footnote refers to the specific item within the document. I prefer to link to images of the original, not to modern online "reprints"; but I'll see if I can get a more specific URL to the document in question. --Orange Mike | Talk17:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You were right about the pages in the Reports and Collections; I've corrected that. As to the other, I don't think it's really WP:OR to say that when an entire tribe was driven out of their home, a child came with them. --Orange Mike | Talk17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Please provide one of the above two cents to close a COIN discission
Hi Orangemike. We are in need of your services to close the Michael Roach COIN discussion. It's gone on too long and the editors would benefit from a consensus close of that discussion and direction on how they can proceed (e.g., Abhayakara's edits the Michael Roach article and cooperation between Nomoskedasticity and Abhayakara to improve the article.). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I can certainly understand why you think I have COI, but Uzma Gamal has never edited the Michael Roach article, so your conclusion that she has COI POV is surprising. Have you seen the disputes that have come up on this article, or are you just basing your ruling on the discussion on WP:COIN? Have you looked at the edits User:Nomoskedasticity has done? Abhayakara (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the edits; my ruling on Uzma was based on her participation in the COIN discussion, where it was obvious. --Orange Mike | Talk20:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
How can you conclude that an editor has POV when they have not edited an article? POV is based on selective use of sources to present a non-NPOV. Abhayakara (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Mike, I assumed your close "Uzma Gamal has almost as strong a problem with NPOV" meant that Uzma Gamal has almost as strong concern that the article remain NPOV. Apparently, based on the above, that's not what you meant. I don't see anything in that discussion from which to draw the conclusion that "Uzma Gamal has almost as strong a problem with NPOV". In fact, the only other editor regularly working the COIN noticeboards, OlYeller21, wrote in reply to my last post in that COIN discussion, "I haven't seen a reason to bar Abhayakara from editing the page or keeping solely to the talk page."[6] I think we both had a clear understanding of the situation: Editors were trying to edit the article in a non-NPOV way. Editors prompting COIN to declare that Abhayakara has a COI had some reason to limit their article edits to highlighting negative information about Michael Roach and appeared to desired to remove Abhayakara from editing that article via COIN so that the article skew the article away from being NPOV. You might disagree with my assessment of the situation, buta COIN discussion view doesn't make me NPOV. As the COIN discussion neared the end, it was clear to both OlYeller21 and I that Abhayakara had a conflict of interest, but that his hands should not be tied from keeping the article NPOV. In other words, neither of us felt that declaring a COI should result in restricting Abhayakara from editing POV posts from other editors who focused their edits on negative aspects of Michael Roach's live. As regulars at COIN, the two of us expressed our views in hopes of finding a way that the editors of the article could go forward and produce an NPOV article. Similar to my postings in that COIN discussion, OlYeller21 noted near the end of the discussion, "I haven't/don't have the time to read through the volumes of discussion and plethora of media coverage of Roach to determine how the content should be handled but I'm seeing Abhayakara make a concerted effort to apply a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines and policies.[7] Both of us agreed that Abhayakara was capable of making judgments about the neutrality of edits to the article and editing the article towards being NPOV, despite his COI. OP Nomoskedasticity didn't improve matters in that discussion by disparaging Michael Roach and Abhayakara early on for Abhayakara's purported "unfailing" use of "geshe" in the context of Michael Roach.[8] You also advised me in that close to cease editing this article directly and bring up any proposed edits to the talk page of the article. I'm at loss for this. I never edited that article, never suggested a proposed edit, or even commented on that article's talk page. In that COIN discussion, I urged the article editors to place the information in the article in context to help get the article to be NPOV in the face of that content dispute. My efforts in that discussion were directed towards dealing with the COIN issue, so extending the close to assert that I have a NPOV and should refrain from editing the Michael Roach article seem outside my participating in that COIN discussion. Would you please reconsider your close as it relates to me. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have stricken the language which relates to you, with an apologetic edit summary. I was misled, in my first reading, by your echoing of the phrase "Geshe Michael" as used by his followers. (As a Quaker, I'm afraid I don't react well to specialized terms of this sort for spiritual leaders, and I fear it is possible I over-reacted to this.) --Orange Mike | Talk15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I only echoed the phrase "Geshe Michael" in that COIN discussion because I wanted to try to diffuse any agitation Abhayakara might have felt at others implying that Michael Roach, to whom Abhayakara seemed very attached, might not be entitled to the title Geshe outside of the Wikipedia article. I don't think I've ever used the term "geshe" before in my life, and wouldn't normally do so in any Wikipedia discussion, but thought that, in this situation, a little understanding might help. Obviously, in the article, Michael Roach generally should be referred to as Roach. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is the first time I've ever experienced religious discrimination. I guess I should feel privileged that it's the first, but it still smarts. I would suggest that you think about this seriously and try to figure out whether you really have any right to claim neutrality, or render a decision, in this discussion. One of my most influential role models when I was a teenager was a friend and teacher who referred to his wife using "thee," but referred to me using "you." It always surprised me a bit, so I can understand why you might take my own use of "geshe" in a similar way, but I always assumed Walt was just being polite. I wish you would assume the same. My use of the title "geshe" may seem the opposite to you, but to say "Geshe Michael" is about as formal as referring to a college professor as "Dr. Jim." If I were being formal, I would refer to him as "Geshe Roach" or "Geshe Chundzin." Abhayakara (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It was not "religious discrimination": it was notation of a trivial indicator of a possible non-neutral POV. If I had not mentioned it, in the interest of full disclosure, it would not be an issue (nor should it be), since it is (as I said) trivial. I would have done the same if somebody kept insisting on referring to "Mr. Name" or "Doctor Othername" or "Firstname" or "Professor Lastname" or "Father Firstname" or "His Grace the Duke of Whatever" every time they were mentioned, instead of our standing practice of simply referring to the subject as "Lastname": persistent use of honorifics is a symptom of a non-neutral attitude. I just notice them more rapidly than folks accustomed to using them in daily life. --Orange Mike | Talk17:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a fine rationalization, but it's not consistent—if it's at all possible for someone to use honorifics consistently, as Uzma did, then you have an inconsistency. Furthermore, a practicing Jew would generally refer to any Rabbi as Rabbi so-and-so. My wife and I refer to the Rabbi who married us as Rabbi Sternfield. But it would be absurd to suggest that I have POV if I were editing an article about him—I haven't seen him since the wedding, and only saw him about four or five times before that. You justified your position on the basis of your status as a Quaker, but from where I'm sitting it is very plainly discriminatory—you ruled exactly against the consensus among disinterested editors in the COIN debate. Abhayakara (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(Also, if you look at my edits to the article, once I figured out what the house style was, all of my edits refer to Geshe Michael as Roach, to Christie McNally as McNally, and to Ian Thorson as Thorson.) Abhayakara (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Your edits did, yes: but your remarks in the discussion continued to use the honorifics, which in my opinion as a fallible human being was indicative (not probative) of a problem. That's all I am saying. --Orange Mike | Talk18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It's natural when someone says something that reflects badly on you to try to dismiss it. But it's not honest. You pat yourself on the back for admitting your mistake to Uzma, after she called you on it, but persist in claiming that you are unbiased, despite having admitted to making a biased decision about her on the very same basis that you say you was a significant factor in your decision about me. Your accusations against me are like those of a disillusioned cop who sees everyone who disagrees with them as a perp, and has lost sight of the reason they joined the force: to serve the public. Your position must be right, because I am a perp, and I can't possibly have a point. I must be grasping at straws, because I can't be right. You overrode two neutral editors, accusing one of them publicly of POV, and managed to piss off another neutral editor who agreed that I should be banned. But it must be you who is right, because I am a perp, and so I have to be wrong. Abhayakara (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I'm reacting too strongly because I'm reacting to your reaction to a misunderstanding of what I am asking of you. I think you think I am asking you to change your mind about me. This is not what I am asking. What I am asking is that you admit that you have a COI bias here, and should not be the one to make this decision, because you are biased against people who use formal language when referring to people they respect. I am asking you to un-make the decision and leave it to some other admin who doesn't think that people who use titles when referring to people they respect necessarily have COI. I understand that you think this, but it is a bias, which you have admitted affected your response to Uzma Gamal. If it affected your response to her, it necessarily affected your response to me. Perhaps you made the right decision anyway. If so, the next admin to review the decision will come to the same conclusion. If not, then justice will have been served. I'm sorry for reacting so strongly above; I did it because I really do feel discriminated against—I'm not just making that up to gain some kind of advantage over you. It's hurtful and surprising to find out that a habitual pattern of speech would cause someone to react the way you did. That doesn't excuse my reaction; I mention it because I don't think you are taking this seriously, and I think you should. Abhayakara (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I read your Signpost story and thought I would invite your thoughts on my op-ed posted on the same day. I don't think our positions are necessarily incongruent. In fact, there might be some practical ideas there on how to discourage bad actors, as well as some ideas for a project like COOP to encourage useful ones. You know me - I'm always eager to invite my political opposition sort of speak and get the bi-partisan participation. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have asked for a deletion review of Jesse Liberty. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Msnicki (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The same IP who pushed the Sally Denton book is back -- including adding links to her interviews and to a book review <g>. And is in edit war mode to make sure her title for the Business Plot is prominently listed (the keeping of the absurd commercial spam redirect is his rationale for saying he will take this to arbitration <g>) I don;t know wehre he was the past few months - but clearly it has not been anywhere near Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any advice that would help this user regarding utilizing wikipedia for self promotion? I am pretty sure she is not going to listen to me.-- The Red Pen of Doom21:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou OrangeMike for knowning that article was to stay in my sandbox only and not ready publishing. Tonya Salmone Williams July 26, 2012 11:14 am Salmone williams (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Mail!
Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Please don't hesitate, for my benefit, to delete this after you've read it. I feel that it's only fair to tell you that I mentioned you on Talk:Michael Roach. I don't think I said anything you'd disagree with, and I'm not proposing that you need to respond there, but don't want to give the impression that I'm talking about you behind your back. Abhayakara (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It was a clear and straightforward mention, and nothing there that really required notification: which makes such notification all the more courteous! --Orange Mike | Talk12:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Article about Jude Southerland Kessler
Hi Orange Mike,
I wrote you a response in a different section, but not sure if it will get to you - seems very difficult to know exactly how to say stuff.
Thank you for your note about my aritcle - but there is a misconception; that article is not about myself although I am related (same last name). I am the author's publisher - her name is Jude Southerland Kessler, and is rapidly becoming known as THE John Lennon authority.
As you suggested, I've asked someone from "the list" to move the article to my user page before it gets deleted. But, I followed the guidelines provided, included references and authentication and links so I don't understand why it would not be used in the Wikipedia, like several of her author friends. I used one of their bio's as the template.
She really belongs on Wiki as a reference; she is friends with Cynthia Lennon, Pete Best, May Pang, Louise Harrison, Stella McCartney, Allan Williams, etc, etc, so for research purposes she should be on there.
Help!
Thanks
Kessler9091 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Orangemike, you know I don't like blowing the whistle. But this was not the correct action, yes? There are no edits from the account, and it is a hard block. I assume that your hard block itself was a mistake, but it wouldn't matter otherwise since there are no edits. Edits / no edits cannot be an interpretative problem. Your work in sum is appreciated, but please discuss this policy if you don't like it. NTox · talk19:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That was not a hard block, it was a softerblock. There is no way in which a school can have an account, so I used the appropriate block. --Orange Mike | Talk19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the block parameters, 'account creation' is blocked, and the autoblocker is not listed as disabled. Am I mistaken? NTox · talk20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Orangemike. As mentioned, I can believe that the hard block was a mistake, and I appreciate your friendliness despite this criticism. However, I can't leave this discussion without inquiring about the more important issue: that you seem to be okay with ignoring the “Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked” (emphasis in original) instruction that is explicitly stated in the username policy. In good faith I ask you why you choose not to follow that instruction. When it comes to the policy statement in those quotations, are you choosing to invoke the IAR clause or do you in fact believe that a block like this one to be within the rules? I am honestly asking in a non-rhetorical manner so that we may come to a solution. What this comes down to: you are right that the username is a violation, but that does not mean a block is a required response, according to consensus. Compare this to an administrator who blocked vandals after only one edit and responded to criticism by saying "the block was appropriate, because vandalism is prohibited by the vandalism policy." In sum, as stated above, do you believe this and similar username blocks are appropriate according to the quoted statement? NTox · talk21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-officeconnect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Hi Mike-the unincorporated community is in the town of Mount Ida in Grant County. Mount Ida is located next to the town of Fennimore on the west side. I have the DeLorme Atlas of Wisconsin. Also I restored the gnis citation for the article. Hopfully I can get a map and infobox for the article set up. Also the usage of hamlets in Wisconsin it would be unincorporated communities. Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Wehrle's Wisconsin Blue Book biography says he lived in Fennimore and was twice chairman of the Town Board! --Orange Mike | Talk14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I added the Grant County template. I think the town of Mount Ida was created after Wehrle was living in Fennimore-RFD (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Mike I came across the 'History of Grant County,' Castello N. Holfield, Walworth Publishing Company, 1900. The Town of Mount Ida which includes Mount Ida and Werley was formed from the town of Fennimore in 1877 with first town elections in 1878. pg. 708. Wehrle was town chairman of the Town of Fennimore but before the Town of Mount Ida was created out of the town of Fennimore. There may be info about Wehrle in the same book-thanks-15:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
COI+ certification proposal
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.
Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't been agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Geocode". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 August 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Help desk canned responses
Hi Mike, I'd like to make a constructive criticism. Please consider using {{RD3}} or one of the other HD templates for situations like this. Based on discussion at Astray's 2011 TfD and on the documentation at {{astray}} itself, we should avoid using it when the user makes no indication that they are unaware they are at Wikipedia. Now it may be that nothing at WP:HDT fits a common scenario that you see; I myself was puzzling over which template might be suitable for that particular query, then I saw your response via edit conflict. I would be interested in doing the necessary template work to address that sort of concern, so feel free to let me know if some additional wording options or maybe even a new template could help. Thanks, BigNate37(T)20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right. It's just that "astray" is the easiest to remember (for me anyway). I'll try to watch myself on that. --Orange Mike | Talk20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I reverted back to my retired state
If I am not going to use a service right, I am not going to use it at all. 13:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.8.110 (talk)
Mike, even though you removed my external links, I appreciate you reviewing articles and helping to maintain the quality of Wikipedia. I am also annoyed by Wikipedia links to pages full of ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, and other junk.
I added the link to 1888ARTICLES.COM, because the article seemed balanced and informative, and was the best source of additional information I could find. Since then I found and added a much better source from a 1980 patent filing.
The shrink wrap article contains the sentence, "The most commonly used shrink wrap is polyolefin." The statement appears in many vendor's web pages, but not in a peer reviewed publication. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have. In the mean time, I added a citation needed tag.
Last June, I "improved" the article Metering pump by reluctantly adding a link to Cole Parmer Company, which sells such pumps. I have since read our rules on external links which you pointed me to, and wonder if I should remove the link to Cole Parmer.
Thanks for taking on the difficult task of being a Wikipedia administrator.
1) There should be books or magazines which say the same thing; patents are very company-specific. 2) Yeah, that should come out. 3) Thanx. --Orange Mike | Talk02:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
In seven years here that is the first time that's ever happened. Thanks for the heads-up. (Surprising that that article draws that kind of attention year-round). Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? I'm sure that for some younger viewers, the recent re-make is the primary topic in their own minds. These rules are in place for a reason. --Orange Mike | Talk15:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Geocode, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
OK, though User:Emotionpictures removed edits by User:Fwe506 who asked for my advise and as soon as he readded, in revised prose, it was removed. I know that is a content issue but I was just wondering because the new editor came in to edit the same article 5 minuets after another editor get blocked from that same article. Maybe I'll rephrase what User:Fwe506 was trying to add and see what happens. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The stuff Fwe keeps adding in belongs more in the article on the book than in the article on the film. In this tiny article, it comes across as distinct undue emphasis on a minor point, and indeed as an advertisement for "Captain Charity" and his project. --Orange Mike | Talk00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I told him that the character being derived from the Heroes Welcome UK founder John Senior would seem appropriate especially if he could add some details about other characters without any undue emphasis on the organisation itself or its fund raising which as you say is appropriate to its own article. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kindly thought; but as a Baptist turned Quaker, the Romanist pilpul involved in distinguishing between the Papacy, the Holy See and the Vatican State is so far outside my expertise that I shall sit this one out. --Orange Mike | Talk13:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Just seen your comments re Charity and Senior and on reflection you are quite right as perhaps the additon didn't sit comfortably, I was just trying to add a supporting link. Many thanks for your advice Fwe506 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Mike wrote, "I knew at least two prominent members of the local antisemitic/racist groups on a first-name, welcome in the house, basis back where I grew up in West Tennessee; that does not make this fact 'notable' in any way, nor does that mean that they were in any sense my mentors."
Mike, did you write about those people in a famous memoir, as Frank was written about in Dreams from My Father? Any relationship written about in that very notable book is, in turn, likely to be notable. There are a number of scholars who have characterized their relationship as a mentoring relationship (and, those scholars have signed their real names to their work). I will defer to those scholars sooner than I defer to "Orange Mike."
Frankly, no, I don't. The persistent eagerness of the American radical right in trying to find commies under the bed of an Eisenhower Republican like Obama is really pathetic. I know a lot of people who'd voted for Obama in 2008 hoping that some of the fire of the people you obsess about did rub off on young Barry; but instead are forced now to choose between voting for the disappointing conservatism of the actual Obama presidency, or abstaining and letting the Romney-Ryan back-to-the-Coolidge-era ticket triumph. --Orange Mike | Talk15:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What are we doing wrong to violate anything by adding our non commercial website to the ostomy pages on wilipedia. We are Non commercial. We accept or contain no advertising - we promote no product or service - we list everyone in the ostomy world for free - we are basiclaly the wikipedia answer to the ostomy world - all we do is send free ostomy puppets to the millions of children in countries all over the world to help them to adjust to life with a bag. Do you wear an ostomy Bag? If not you cannot imagine how difficult it is for children to live life with a bag containine facel or urinary output or both is like.
How are we violating content on wilikpaedia. We have written books on the subject yes, and they sell but all the royalties are ploughed back into the puppets for kids and are not mentioned on wikipaedia - When we send the puppets out, they go with no commercial advertising materials or commercial information, just the puppet plus its stoma and bag, all of which we make at our expense. Tell me how we are infringing anything? check out www.thebowelmovement.co.uk - yes, you will find hundreds of manufacturers in our links and informational pages but contact any of them and ask them if they ahve paid for this or if they have given us anything for putting the link on the site - zero, nada, niente nothing - all we want to do is to spend our pensionable years helping people and people like you are trying to stop us get the word out to people who really need it. Do you know how much the so-called associations make annually? Their directors salaries? How much more they get from the government? Yet they don't update their webistes, just carry on taking money from patients who think they might be able to help. The director of one UK association mined over 1 million in salary and expenses last year yet you don't stop them from listing? Concnetrate on people who really abuse wikipaedia for their own commercial enterprises. I am bed bound. My husband is my full time carer. We are both over 60 but all we want to do is to get the word out that there are ostomates in this world for 50 medical reasons - more than cancer - yet no one talks about them because it is below the belt. Millions of these are children under 10 - can you possible imagine what they go through - no sport - strict diets - no real clothing choice so they cannot follow fashion - hardly any holidays - these kids need people like us and we need to get the word out that all they ahve to do is ask and we will sned a free puppet anywhere in the world at no cost (providing a health professional can verify that they are authentic). 12 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhosymynydd (talk • contribs)
Dear Orangemike, if you have a moment could you please have a quick look at EaglesandFootball, their contributions, and my recent AIV report, which may well not have been the right way for me to tackle it, in which case sorry. I note that you have encountered this user before and I wondered/hoped you might have some insight into what's happening here. I *think* it's all garbage but I'm trying to AGF... Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your swift intervention. I will try and drop you a line later but am in terrible haste right now. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Orangemike, you ducked a bullet ... I don't actually need to send you the threatened/implied longer message! (Which would have been very boring.) I was concerned about the user's other edits but the situation is pretty much resolved. Thanks again for your help, with all good wishes DBaK (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
PS You would have liked London during the Olympics and especially our bit of North London. Alexandra Palace temporarily became the Heineken Holland House and was lit and decorated appropriately and much visited by Dutch fans. I have literally never seen so much orange in one place! :)
It is possible that the same blocked user is back. The IP edited the blocked user's page, and seems to exhibit the same mix of apparently real edits and seeming garbage (e.g. 2014 World Cup dates changed with no apparent reason). I don't get it. As always with these cases I fear it's someone writing a dissertation and this is their new experiment. :( 138.37.199.206 (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The Teahouse
Hello Orangemike, I acknowledge your work and your experience. At the Teahouse we have a specific method regarding how visitors are interacted with there. We answer in a friendly, forgiving and patient manner; we welcome visitors and explain Wikipedia policies without warnings and accusations. You can learn more about how the Teahouse functions differently here, for example, at our Host Tips page. Thanks for helping us keep the Teahouse the super friendly and proven-to-work space that it is. heather walls (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, while your answers are completely correct, some of the language can add to the fear that people have editing Wikipedia (and believe me, I at least a little bit understand how frustrating it can be to see the same mistakes over and over and attempt to be patient with them). A phrase like "...about the enormous problems you have here." might make a new editor reading through the answers afraid to speak lest they be admonished, at least I would feel that way. While we want to be honest and clear with people, it's going to take some time for new people to learn the ropes, and at the Teahouse we strive to be extra friendly and patient based on the research that was done in preparation for the project. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! heather walls (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, sounds like socially-inept Uncle Gaijin needs to keep out of the Teahouse and let the hosts and hostesses do their thing. Such is life: every day you learn something new, whether you want to or not. --Orange Mike | Talk12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, just a heads up that I removed the prod tag you placed on the subject page because user pages cannot be prodded. Feel free to take it to MfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk20:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Woodland Pattern
Hi, Mike! Thanks for chiming in on the "debate" about Woodland Pattern. I'll admit I was a bit hasty in my creation process (I got all riled up about how entering this term in the search bar takes a person not to poetry but to military camouflage!), but I wanted to let you know that I based my general approach on the article about Ada Initiative, which includes a boxed mission statement. Maybe once the WP article is developed more fully, that part can go back in. I appreciate any assistance you can offer with developing the article further--hope you are enjoying summertime! --Jgmikulay (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if my response to the Indian Residential School System page did not match the criteria for this site. My intention was good but I have no idea how to use wiki and to be honest I find this site way to complex to figure out !
I just happened to see my film, "Sleeping Children Awake" posted with the wrong production date and thus the blind attempt to correct that error. I also tried to post a more in depth description of the documentary, only to help fill out the content , in case it could help others in their specific search , also not understanding that this may not suit wiki's rules.
I also attempted to correct the name of the director which lists Wikibirdy (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Magic Arrow Productions. A company did not direct the documentary video. It should read Rhonda Kara Hanah as it appears in the final credits on the closing of the video.
Thank goodness there are smart cookies like you who can manage this site!
It's even more important with issues like this of such significance to First Nations people, that we must be scrupulous in how we handle ourselves. Thanks for being understanding. --Orange Mike | Talk18:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Nicer block message, please?
Hi Orangemike. You recently blocked 3 Speaker High (talk·contribs) as a {{spamusernameblock}}. The user was trying to get answers to questions they had, and was working well with other editors (see here and here). I'm afraid that the user will get scared and leave Wikipedia, so would you please consider unblocking and leaving a friendly note, or using a more good-faith and less overwhelming block template? Thanks, David1217What I've done19:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I would have been more open to doing so, except that they admit themselves that they're only here to advertise the band whose name they are using. Otherwise, a softerblock would have been in order; although they could also have been hardblocked for impersonation of a band of which they are not a member, thatwould have been overharsh. --Orange Mike | Talk19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand why you gave them that blocked template; however I would like to keep one of the few newbies I've found who communicates well. Thank you for changing the message. David1217What I've done19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Totally solid block, seems to have had the desired effect, they have retracted their threat and apologized for their other obnoxious behavior. I'm thinking unblock but checking with you first as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I thought so. Although I must say that his mother is more relevant than his grandmother who was never seen in an interview while Dahmer's mother was in fact seen in an interview Right?. Nienk (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
GraceAG
Please unblock User:GraceAG. After the user posted his/her ownership messages, I attempted to reach out to the user to help her/him understand how WP works. Then, someone hauled him off to COIN, then another person to UAA, then you blocked her/him. Except that GraceAG hasn't edited since the original set of messages. In other words, we have no idea right now if the person is willing to work within WP policy. You can't say that blocking GraceAG prevented disruption, because we have no way of knowing whether or not, once made aware of our rules, GraceAG would be wiling to comply with our policies. I know that it may be unusual, but there really are people with a COI who, once informed of how WP works, learn to edit within the rules. Your block is not appropriate per either WP:BLOCK or WP:BITE. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I did use a causeblock, rather than a spamusername block, for just that reason. Do you really think the causeblock template is all that bitey? --Orange Mike | Talk02:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think any block in that situation would have been bitey. The editor was blocked for things they had no knowledge about. After being informed of the rules, the editor didn't make any edits at all, much less any edits that violate our policies. This was not a case of vandalism, where every reasonable person would know better. This is the case where an editor thought they understood the Wikipedia page to be something under the church's control, even though it's not. Since the editor had not edited since being informed, you had no reason to believe that your block was preventing any disruption to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Omike - Can you re-do this move [9] (in the with-accent to without-accent direction) -- silly know-it-alls have moved it back. The accented name needs to stay, I suppose, as a redirect so it can't just be salted in the usual manner, but is there nonetheless some way to prevent anyone from doing another move back to the accented name? Thanks. EEng (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Well done, thanks. EEng (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Peggy Krusick
Hi-I am having problems with the Peggy Krusick article; one on the editors Milwaukee7 edits the article and makes the lead sentence unclear. I think the editor wants some information in there. I had to revert the article back to your edits twice. Can you do something. Thanks-RFD (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
User Milwaukee7 is creating problems with the Peggy Krusick article again this morning. I reverted the changes. Thanks-RFD (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not create or write the Wikipedia entries on me, but I did update the bibliography last year. I thought that was a service to the readers and I did not realize it was a policy violation. I apologize and will certainly avoid that in the future. John D Caputo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcaputo (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Another editor is editing the Peggy Krusick article. Maybe you could take a look at the edits. I have not reverted the edits. I think the 2 editors involved are only interested in this article especially sine the Wisconsin August Primary Election. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The irony is that since Krusick lost her nomination, these sorts of fluffy advertising-like edits don't do her any good (unless they are looking to the future, or looking to undermine her opponent). --Orange Mike | Talk15:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As you are a regular of WP:UAA, you are invited to participate in this RfC, which may influence the noticeboard. Have a good one. (I know you have already opined there, but I thought I'd still add you in the mix of contacts vis-à-vis this message.) NTox · talk09:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It will never be officially recognized, because it's a made-up term designed to castigate one's foes
Orangemike, take a chill pill. I didn't add commentary or anything else to the article. I was simply reverting StopYourBull's nonconstructive edits. Please feel free to edit the article if you see something amiss. --Hamitr (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Your edits give the impression that this made-up term will be recognized, by actual psychological professionals; whereas in fact this is just a political cheapshot by a propagandist for one side of a running dispute. --Orange Mike | Talk12:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Orangemike. The deletion log shows that you deleted Ben Wynter as G11 at 17:15, 13 May 2010 and again at 16:08, 18 May 2010. On the second occasion, you pointed out that it was "almost word-for-word identical to the last deleted version" and "hopelessly promotional". Well there's once again an article on the same person by the same creator. Not being an admin I can't tell if it's the same as or different from what you deleted, but it's certainly very promotional. I'm gonna chop off the copyedit tag and mark it {{GOCEreviewed}}, but it's about all I can do. Is it still a G11? Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It's the same old stuff, by the same editor as the one who created the second one (and a probable sock of the one who created the first iteration). --Orange Mike | Talk13:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hoplophobia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
"to pretend that this is anything other than a pejorative is the NPOV violation here!"
Orangemike, you do realize that simply making an assertion like this doesn't justify your repeated reverts, right? If some people claim it is a pejorative, then you should have no problem finding a source to support it.
Hi Orange Mike, Thanx for your input. I have read the guidelines and have made my best to adhere to them. I have been working diligently to amend and enhance the quality of the page as now it is far from being a neutral reflection of the company and the business opportunity it constitutes.
There are literally millions of QNET members around the world and without exaggerating, this article is an offense to most of them. When I told my parents I want to join QNET the first thing they did was do a background check, and for most people, that means wikipedia!
QNET is a well established corporation by now, 700 million dollar revenues in 2007 according to a source on Forbes.com.. The company has double the number of IRs than Herbalife for one thing and as pyramid schemes are unsustainable, QNET was long supposed to be dead by now, but the reality is its one of the very few survivors who made it past the 10 year mark.
It has reputable leadership (Dato Vijay Eswaran is a DATO in first place) and the company is the sponsor of the most prestigious sport events. None of this &good stuff& transpires from the current article.
That being said, please help me fix this page, I submitted new content pertaining to the business model and corrected some mistakes(please read above), I was hoping that I had received sufficient backing to make some important changes from the numerous exchanges I had with two other Wikipedians till now.
All I can say is that whoever wrote the article was biased and inaccurate. The history section has little substance, there is no talk of the management/leadership, the business model part is flawed, the $250 dollar figure quoted seems to have come out of the blue and guess what, its senseless in the absence of background info.
Furthermore, the references on the current side that I opened are non existent, inactive links or similar..
THE VERSION THAT I UPLOADED contained high quality references such as FORBES.COM, which is probably the most reliable and authoritative source of the whole article if we really want to be picky
I am offering BETTER sources and making the page more meaningful so I really dont understand why am I encountering so much resistance in improving the quality of the page (which now is mediocre at best)
(Wikigeekpower (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)).
So, you have an admitted conflict of interest; and you talk of "the business opportunity it constitutes"! Is there any wonder that your edits, already suspicious in appearance, are now being looked at very skeptically? --Orange Mike | Talk16:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike! I saw that you are an administrator, could you please check this discussion on this Eric Harris picture? I think it's all right, could it be closed? Thank you and sorry for bothering you. Nienk (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me Mike, I asked you something on the discussion page. I find it rather difficult to end this all haha. Sorry again for bothering you. Nienk (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Two more questions and I don't bother you again, who closes it? and can I remove the "Possibly unfree" tag from the picture's page? Nienk (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I honestly apologize if I in any way hurt your sensitivity in any way. Sincerely, sorry again. That was not my aim. Nienk (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
RILEY SCHILLACI
The Riley Schillaci does have cultural relevancy. She has been on America's Got Talent, and is an internationally known sword swallower. A trouble maker has been deletingparts of the wiki entry and getting rid of citations and cultural; relevancy. I would like to repost the article with correct citations, and links. Thanks~ Johnny Nukes — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I object to your A7 deletion of the page. The significance threshold was easily passed by her appearances on Ripley's Believe It or Not and America's Got Talent. While these accomplishments would not hold up at AfD, they support the article against speedy deletion. Goodvac (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
sir, my page was deleted by you...! Sir, atleast you should have give me a warning... To delete the content... I don't even have an idea that what promotion was in my article... I spent 13 days to make this article... Sir, please give me a warning and move my article to the wikipedia page... I am a new user, please accept apologies.. I will remove all the unwanted material... Ok
my page name was MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN.....http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Muhammad_Arshad_Khan .. Hoping for good..
regards,
ARK (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Aizaz Ur Rahman. I was surprised to see the article had been speedy deleted for reason G11. From what I remember, the article was not "exclusively promotional" and was, in fact, referenced to a number of independent reliable sources which seemed to show MAK met the minimum WP:GNG criteria. A number of editors were involved at AfC in helping Aizaz Ur Rahman make basic improvements to the article.
If a further editor had doubts about the article's validity, in my view they should have raised an AfD discussion. Sionk (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Orangemike, I'm going to assume the deletion was in error, because no one tagged the page for speedy deletion, it clearly had numerous independent sources, and, while it had problems, doesn't come close to G11. Feel free to tag it, modify it, or even send it to AfD if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yea.. I also think that the deletion was a mistake..! Ok.. Thanks for the user who assumed it.. and tried to understand ARK (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello friends! I've neutralized the article till some extent and if it still has the issue do point it. As far as GNG is concerned, it passes it easily from my side. TheSpecialUserTSU11:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Now I think that the article is fully neutralized and now is according to the wikipedia guidelines. Thanks to everyone for every possible effort..! ARK (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance and patience with a new user. I appreciate you being straight forward about interacting in this environment. If only I had more time to become a super user here. Thanks again.
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Restoration of the Geocode article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
"(ArbCom) ... will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), so users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions. It will not do so." --Orange Mike | Talk22:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No fair-use rationale
Hi Mike. You made this edit but there is no fair-use rationale for the use in Mail carrier and it fails WP:NFCC because it adds nothing to the article and without any critical commentary there is no reason to use a non-free image there. Don't you agree? ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you!.
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Hi Mike, I understand it now that Lionel is not relevant enough. But what about his mother, I read her obituary and she used to work in the field of AIDS in a Fresno, California medical center. Would that make her relevant or not? Thank you Mike. Mark from Alabama. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand haha, I just want to create an article and don't find anything! haha. Thank you indeed Mike and excuse my repeated questions. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the Alabama State Legislature website-Mike Murphy is the person you need to contact about Past Alabama State Legislators. It is some database about Alabama's Past Legislators that is being worked on and it is not up and running yet. Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Several states-Minnesota and Iowa have databases about their past legislature and they are excellent resources to use-Thanks again-RFD (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
"The book has been influential in the early years it was published. It had been even translated..." In English, you would say, "The book was influential early in the history of its publication. It was even translated..." etc. (Myself, I would advise omitting the word "even".) --Orange Mike | Talk18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Talk:Masala_Dosa. Message added 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi OrangeMike -- Jeanne Gomoll is a WorldCon GOH next year and I've seen floating on the ether complaints of her lack of a Wikipedia page. I've started gathering some links toward a draft; assistance / contributions would be appreciated. --Lquilter (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've known Jeanne for over thirty years; she and I have already exchanged some e-mails on the subject. Her "Open Letter to Joanna Russ" has gotten a lot of attention from scholars of the relationship between SF, feminism and fandom, and is frequently mentioned, cited or discussed in books and articles on these subjects. Solid biographical basics from reliable third-party sources are harder to find. --Orange Mike | Talk18:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I see you're an administrator, and I would like to have your help. I'm fan of horror movies and want to contribute to Final Destination 2 character Kimberly Corman's death by putting in her article the piece of news in which it tells how she and Officer Burke died prior to Final Destination 3, how do I make quotations? or better said, how to put the article in a "collapsible list" style. It's a long newspaper article which you can read here almost at the bottom. Thank you and sorry to bother you. Cooppeerr (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
But yet another question, and again, sorry to bother you. I'm trying to, at least, upload the picture of the newspaper article, but it doesn't let me because I'm not an autoconfirmed user. What's that? Cooppeerr (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Somebody who has made a few edits to articles, and been around a few days; it's a way of discouraging possible drive-by disposable accounts created merely to upload unsuitable pictures, then leave. Once you've made a few more edits (and yes, edits to my talk page do count), you'll be good. However: a picture of that "newspaper article" is probably going to be a copyright violation, as it is merely decorative in function (rather than integral to the articles), and thus doesn't qualify as fair use. --Orange Mike | Talk20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Mike, thanks for your tweaks to the page; it's cleaner and better now. If you haven't already, can I ask that you watchlist it for a few days? I'm pretty confident that when the COI editor's block expires later today, he'll resume removing content (indeed I suspect that one late night comment from an IP on the Talk page was him). As I've said, I don't care finally which way the article comes out; I just don't want the content steered exclusively by Bailey's employees by dint of their sheer relentlessness, and your involvement, whichever way it cuts, would help. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the page last week; I am guessing you moved on from it after things calmed down, but I'm afraid that (yet) another IP has taken an interest and is removing that section that Bailey and his associates don't like and I may need your help again. Also if you have any commentary to add on the Talk page that would go toward a consensus on keeping this material in, that would give me one more hook to push back against these POV editors. Thanks again, as always. JohnInDC (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
AppIt Ventures
Mike,
Good afternoon. I'm writing in reference to the recently deleted page for AppIt Ventures. I apologize for writing you here if I'm supposed to be sending this elsewhere; if that's the case, please feel free to redirect me. I would like to write a page for AppIt as a resource for anyone looking for more information about the company. It has multiple pages of its own (www.appitventures.com; facebook.com/appitventures; twitter.com/appit_ventures, linkedin.com/company/appit-ventures; youtube.com/user/AppItVentures), as well as dozens of mentions by outside sources.
If you google "AppIt Ventures," the first 9 pages of results are almost entirely related to this company. Among the most notable outside sources of information regarding AppIt Ventures are multiple reports done by news agencies regarding the company's tie for first place in a business competition at University of Colorado Denver. One was by Channel 9News, another by the Denver Post, and dozens more were written by various websites that focus on the topics of app development, business, and startups. There have also been interviews of the two co-founders as well, such as the one published by shoestringventure.com.
I'd like to reiterate the fact that all Wikipedia posts must be unbiased, factual, and verifiable, and that that rule will certainly be respected in this case as well. It would be a valuable reference for users if AppIt Ventures had its own Wikipedia page -- in fact, it would likely be the single most unbiased source of information on this topic on the Internet.
Please reconsider the deletion of this informative page. I look forward to your response.
I'm an (unpaid) intern there. Before my interview to be one of their interns, I researched everything I could about the company so I could come in knowing who they are, what they do, etc. I was surprised I couldn't find a Wikipedia page on them, because I thought surely one would exist. After they brought me on to the team, I asked if I could write a Wikipedia page about the company, and the co-founders said that would be fine. So, here I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandy R Anderson (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I was afraid it was something like that. Unfortunately, because of your obvious conflict of interest, you're the worst possible sort of person to be writing about them (other than the co-founders, of course). If the company is genuinely notable (and I don't mean, tie for first place in a business competition at University of Colorado Denver - that's like "won the Tri-County Battle of the Bands at the FieldDaleTowne Mall two years in a row"), somebody else will write a more impartial article about them. Why not try writing, or better yet improving, articles in areas where you don't have a conflict of interest? --Orange Mike | Talk21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Alright, let's take a look at the second paragraph in the fascism article's lede.
"Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views.[7][8] Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs..."
Clearly this is inconsistent with the Nazi Party article's assertion that it is simply a "far right" philosophy. Seeing as there is significant disagreement in the matter, would it not be within Wikipedia's spirit of impartiality to leave out the political position altogether?--Æðð (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
You didn't read the actual sources, did you? This has been hashed out over and over again: the NSDAP was a far-right party, whose funding and allies were always of the Right. They disdained conservative parliamentarians for compromising with democracy and the Left; but they were always far right. If you have new evidence, take it up on the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question; but as a historian, I can tell you that the evidence of history is very much against you. And in the meantime: the consensus version stands. --Orange Mike | Talk23:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine."[10]
Clicking on the links that you have provided should show you the deletion notice for the user pages associated with them.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The names are, yes, and, per WP:CORPNAME, they should be informed of this and told to change their username per the proper processes. Blocking them just because of a promotional username is in direct violation of WP:CORPNAME, a policy. SilverserenC00:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear: the content of the user pages was clearly promotional, not just the user names. That's why Orangemike used G11 to get rid of them, and, looking at the deleted files, I think his judgment was sound.—Kww(talk) 01:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they all had histories of creating shamelessly promotional "articles" which have been deleted. (By the way, I thought you were an admin, seren?) --Orange Mike | Talk15:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You come across as a low-key but intelligent editor, the sort who should be considered for the task. (My only quibble would be what I perceive as your naïvete towards spammers and COI scammers such as Victualler.) --Orange Mike | Talk21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike, As you answered my query concerning ThomasB4412 (talk·contribs) uploading non-rationale images at WP:HELPDESK the other day I thought I should tell you that he's doing it again. I've just removed File:Amanda Holden.jpg from Amanda Holden and am about to check to see if he's uploaded any others. If there are more I'll remove them from the connected pages, but I wonder if someone could watch his activities or direct h im to the appropriate guidelines regarding this. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
remove something from one of your archives. See [11]. This is a copyvio site and Moonriddengirl and I agree it should be blacklisted, but before I can add it to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist I need to remove it everywhere. There were 51 links when I started. Unfortunately I can't do any more until next week. I didn't want to remove it from your archive without telling you. Perhaps you would do it for me? I wouldn't mind in fact if you finished it.... :-). Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Victuallers
Hello! Could you please block the account User:Victuallers? The name violates the policy because "Victuallers" is the name of the company contracted with the government of Gibraltar to publicize in Wikipedia the location as a tourist destination. The same standards apply to all WP editors, not just newbies. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
In this case, the company Victuallers was apparently named after the WP account name, not the other way around. Such a heavy-handed action would be grossly inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk12:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No, because the policy is against the adoption of a username which is the name of a company. There is no evidence that when the username was adopted it was the name of a company. --Orange Mike | Talk13:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
That is entirely immaterial; the username policy prohibits the use of usernames which give the impression the user is editing on behalf of a group or company or website; the fact that Victuallers chose to adopt his username as the name of his company is entirely immaterial. Considering your proactive approach to paid editing and the username policy, I consider your reply puzzling (in Italy, we'd call it pilatesca, too bad the English language lacks a vivid equivalent...). SalvioLet's talk about it!13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Victualler" is a common word. The username itself is not promotional in nature. It would be a gross abuse of the username policy to block just because he happened to name his company the same thing as his username, especially since it is also a common word. I run a small consulting company that is almost the same as my username, do you want to block me? It's natural for someone to name their personal company the same as the handle they often used online. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
URL changes I don't understand
Dear Mike (or any of your TPSs), do you know what the effects are of this user's series of edits? I am sure that clever people can see it at once and I can't. I have of course asked the editor but who knows if they will respond ... in the meantime, I don't know whether to worry about or welcome the changes: are they good, bad, effectless or what? All advice gratefully read. Apologies for bothering you out of the blue with this. :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment - oh hang on a minute - is the "tag" bit in the syntax some kind of sad attempt to get income if anyone buys from that "referral"? Please tell me it's not so. I would prefer an innocent explanation ... and anyway presumably the actual rate of, er, commission would be incredibly low - if that is what it is ... DBaK (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're right. Besides: Amazon, and especially the "reviews" section, is notoriously not a reliable source for anything. It's full of spam, fluff, nonsense and trashtalk, and articles here should never rely on it for anything other than a release date and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk16:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, how depressing ... tsk. And thanks for your other comments - yes absolutely. The reviews ... unbelievable, both literally and figuratively! Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You deleted this per WP:CSD#G1, patent nonsense. Do you mind if I undelete it, and take it to MFD instead? It isn't really patent nonsense (I can understand it), and it had previously been tagged for G1 and the tag removed by another editor. It would be a procedural MFD; I'm not in favor of deletion, but an MFD had already been started on it by another editor when it was deleted, and I don't want to look like I'm trying to get away with something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Mike. I am looking for a helping hand. Could you assist in collapsing some of the "chat" discussions beginning on Talk:Innocence of Muslims. I chose you at random from the list of Admin by letting my mouse blindly select a letter from the Admin list and again once the "O"s came up. Your name was closest to the curser. LOL! (seriously).--Amadscientist (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Mike, I removed the Discrimination project category from this article's talk page because it seems to be arbitrarily placed there. The school was also listed as a segregation academy (which it may or may not be) by another editor. The only reason I can currently find for listing this school as a segregation academy and therefore discrimination project is that the school is a private school and was found in the 1960s. I've read the segregation academy article and think I understand what one is, but I've seen no sourcing to say that the school is or is not one. I haven't had a chance to look into it. The editor that put that classification made a few constructive additions to the article, but otherwise gutted the article. I just think that there needs to be a little bit better criteria on what qualifies an article to be listed on the discrimination project. I don't (at this time) think this article should rightly be in that category. Sf46 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles for deletion
This is about your recent post on articles for deletion/Jamey Harrow. For the record I am not affiliated with --ThunderousMastering (talk) Not to mention your evidence is ridiculous the site you linked to is an official site and has multiple links to artist sites not to mention it is a subdivision of a larger company and absolutely anybody associated with them could be in charge of that account. But if that is what you think then okay--TheRealCrews (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a bubba, Southern Baptist from Tennessee, turned hippie Quaker from Milwaukee. One antisemitic website singled me out by name as "the kike who deleted" whatever stupid ZOG-bashing garbage they wanted to push in here! --Orange Mike | Talk03:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, it takes all kinds. We've got this one nut (now blocked) who's threatening to sue wikipedia on the grounds that we're unfair to astrologers. I had never heard of a militant astrologer before. It would be interesting to put him in a cage with the Jew-obsessed IP and see what happens. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I am overawed by the brilliance of Baseball Bugs's suggestion. This could be a massive new spectator sport. I would like to buy shares in it. And nominate some contestants. Oh my goodness yes. DBaK (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, leaving notice on admin's talk page and asking them to close a thread you're involved in is one thing. Editorializing in that notice is another. Just drop the stick and walk away. Volunteer Marek 18:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
[14]: ". Unlike you, as it seems you've developed quite a dislike towards him, thus I could argue you not only violate BITE, but COI :> Seriously, your comments here are a violation of AGF, NPA, CIV, BITE". [15]: "any comments which disagree with Qworty and IRWolfie have been met with immediate attacks and accusations. These two users in particular have acted in a very non-professional - not so say rude and obnoxious - manner here. A bit of a WP:BOOMERANG (in a form of a warning) might be warranted" Do you disagree with my summary? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The thread is not very constructive. I'd like to see certain editors apologize to the newbie (Lawrence), but apologies on Wiki are like snowflakes in hell. Given that, closing that thread as no action, thus absolving Lawrence by default, gets my support. And ending the dramu, which seems to be the only thing this thread is good for at this point, is never a bad thing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here19:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
and if you have free time, you should volunteer to end world hunger, or donate blood, do something useful, instead of vandalizing pages, and deleting my questions.--Bgggongfei (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an ideological/political crank (and probable sockpuppet) who keeps throwing the same feces on the wall at Jimbo's talk page, in hopes that eventually it will stick. (And by the way, my trollish "friend", I do volunteer to end world hunger, and I do donate blood (even though I have a severe needle phobia). --Orange Mike | Talk15:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that you offered an explanation, but was this really necessary in this particular case? He was not vandalizing the talk page, and flat-out asked if a certain source was appropriate for use in the Women in Refrigerators article, and I offered a response. Far be it from me to be an enabler for IP vandals (see my record of blocking them if you wish), but I really don't think that was called for here, even if someone editing from that IP has engaged in inappropriate behavior elsewhere. And this aside from the fact that RBI is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and concedes opposition to it. My feeling is, if an editor vandalizes pages and ignores warnings (say, three of them), then he/she can be blocked. But I don't see justification for removing that discussion; it just doesn't appear to qualify. Can you offer links to vandalism on his part or evidence that that discussion was intended by that editor to be disruptive? Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how posting on talk pages constitutes vandalism. At best, he should've been told that perhaps having one discussion one one talk page for this matter for all those articles, instead of having essentially the same one on multiple pages. I don't see how this is vandalism. Nightscream (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
He is a disruptive editor, who uses talk pages as forums to disparage ideologies with which he disagrees. I believe in at least one of his incarnations, he has made NPOV-violating edits to Lifetime Channel, just off the top of my head. He makes constant attacks on living persons and other editors, and is generally a disruptive editor who contributes nothing to this project but vitriol (unlike many of our more collegial conservative editors); and has a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. --Orange Mike | Talk03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I have a question about Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files that if I can close a discussion the one found here as I am a member on the OTRS team see here for verification. So I was wondering since I approved the OTRS ticket can I close the discussion down as a keep? Or do I have to wait for an admin to close the discussion? Thanks, --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
One article in the Washington Post does not make the subject notable. You need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
particularly when that article goes out of its way to say that "medical world hasn’t yet embraced the phobia as real. Trypophobia isn’t listed in any major dictionary or in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Attempts to add trypophobia to the Oxford English Dictionary" and that it is only being studied by 2 scientists and their initial conclusions have been rebuffed as " more simply be explained" by other hypothesis. -- The Red Pen of Doom15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Many maladies not officially recognized by medical establishment have WP pages. Among them: Drapetomania, Gay bowel syndrome, and Miliary fever. Deletion was based on erroneous assumption that it was a hoax or fraud, not that it was not officially recognized. In addition to Washington Post, references to the malady are in several books, including Abnormal Psychology (2009), Linguistics for Everyone (2010), and Face Your Fears: A Proven Plan to Beat Anxiety, Panic, Phobias, and Obsessions (2012). Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Good to hear it, but I never thought you were. In my (so far) comically quixotic attempt to undelete theTrypophobia page, I submitted a request to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Trypophobia, and also contacted you. The admin responding at undeletion informed me that you were not the deleter (deletist?), despite the page saying you were, and I should contact User:Seicer for redress. He had retired. I then pleaded my case to [[16]]. There I got one positive comment, and one obnoxious fellow who wants to delete or redirect all psychology articles that do not have published research (there are thousands of them), even if they are notable topics. I think this is a classic example of WP admins digging in their heels when they get outside attention from the press. Before I lose all faith in humanity, or at least Wikipedia, is there anything you can do to help? Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
So far, Edgar, I don't think you've made much of a case for recreation. One skeptical article, even in a major newspaper, is not really enough to meet our standards. (And yes, we routinely delete articles that do not have published research to back them up; that's what we're supposed to do under our standards of verifiability, reliable sourcing and no original research.) --Orange Mike | Talk12:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything substantial about them, with regard to the Diocese? Looks to me like this is just one tiny notch above a local men's sodality or CYO branch, but one that issues press releases and pamphlets? --Orange Mike | Talk21:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (totally Protestant)
According to the National Catholic Register article that I added to the article-Bishop Morlino gave the group some office space at the diocesan center and gave them his blessing. Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you OrangeMike, while I do understand the reasoning, my personal opinion is that licensing requirements this severe and a decision tree this complex are consuming manpower in recreating the limitations of print. Surely a better balance could be struck between unleashing wiki potential, especially for content meant to be in the public domain, and Wikipedia's legal needs.Odellhuff (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to figure out where the middle ground should be when you consider that one single successful claim for damages for copyright infringement could make a huge hole in the Foundation's finances.--ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
VMI
Orangemike,
I noticed you reverted an edit on the number of general officers that VMI has produced. Doesn't the source cited actually say 265 instead of 300? Not a big deal either way, just wanted to clear up any confusion. Ocalafla (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Further comments/concerns?
If you have any further comments/concerns/or responses to make here, could you voice them in that section? Mark replied to you a few days ago. SilverserenC02:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Suwanda Sugunasiri
Hi Orangemike,
I realize your concern, but please play fair and give us a chance to respond. I only became aware that the page was under question this afternoon. The message I saw then gave us another four of five days to respond. Checking tonight, it has already been deleted. Could you at least reinstate the page until the promised deadline is arrived at?
I've known Professor Sugunasiri for about ten years. I can attest that the man is a prodigious writer, an organizer of events, a leader of a local college dedicated to the teaching of Buddhism, and a confirmed Buddhist himself. I couldn't find anything untrue in the article.
The quick deletion of the article throws away several months of other people's work. This much time was required to validate the facts and references in exquisite and painstaking detail.
If you could at least be more specific about what you find problematic that would help. And don't you think it would be more fair if we had a chance to respond, to adjust if needed, to work together to find an answer that might satisfy both of us?
The advertisement that I deleted was so shamelessly, blatantly, cluelessly promotional as to be completely unsalvageable. Take a look at articles about notable academics, such as Eric Foner or Pradeep Rohatgi or John A. Fallon. They contain references to impartial, third-party sources. They don't contain clippings from letters to the editor, or extensive prattle about local non-notable clubs they started; and they certainly don't depend on information sourced to the subject of the article. Their tone is impartial and neutral and professional, what we call "encyclopedic". What I deleted was none of these. It is possible that an encyclopedia article could be written about Sugunasiri (although it would be perhaps one-thirtieth the length); but this was not it. --Orange Mike | Talk13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Thanks for the references for academics that you like. I had looked at a few professor bios during the creation of the article, but they were invariabley stubs and it was invariable that Wiki wanted them expanded. I'll have a look at yours. Best Wishes Jim V
Hi Orange Mike; There have been several additional newspaper articles recently published that inform the ministry section of Ralph Drollinger's Wiki. These articles are easiiy accessed via their posts on a Capitol Ministries search. Can you incorporate that information and rewrite that section? Being new to Wiki, that task seems to be a bit over my head. Thanking you in advance, AccuracyInPosting — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Best thing to do is to post links to them on the talk page of the Drollinger article, along with suggestions as to how the additional information might be incorporated. --Orange Mike | Talk15:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that advice. I think I have done that correctly. Also, I have done some research and request that OCNative be banned from editing on this Wiki. Strong evidence exists that he is a sockpuppet of those who are alleged to have committed acts of fraud in the theft of 1,000's of emails from their former employer; in reviewing the history of his edits, he is constantly rewriting the page with an axe to grind, citing one source that is now eclipsed by various other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccuracyInPosting (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty strong (and totally unsubstantiated) language, coming in an accusation against one of our more productive editors. Looking at the evidence, there would be more cause to suspect you of being a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of Drollinger (although I make no such accusation). --Orange Mike | Talk17:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Some editor has been editing the Peggy Krusick article. I think it may be same editor about under a different name-thanks-RFD (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Codex of Santa Catarina Ixtepeji at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
