User talk:Orangemike/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Spectralon

Hi Orangemike. Earlier this year I wrote to you about the article Spectralon, which you had deleted as "blatant advertising". I'm starting to work on fixing it up. My draft is at User:Srleffler/Spectralon. Please undelete the original article to restore the edit history, and merge my draft there. I believe the current text and references are sufficient to establish notability of the subject, and restoring it to the regular namespace will make it easier to coordinate with other editors. Spectralon is an important engineering material, which has been the subject of many scientific papers. It should not be controversial to have an article on it.--Srleffler (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Epstein School

Re. Clou2epstein (talk · contribs), The Epstein School

Responding to a helpme, I advised the user about bestcoi, and suggested use of the article talk page, etc. As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know; I hope they'll accept best coi practice and discuss, etc. Please see User_talk:Clou2epstein#Request.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Request:Hello Orangemike. I am taking the advice of Cheez to invite/request that in the future, you could talk about suggested changes or reccommendations on my talk page. I much prefer discussion and believe I am not only easy to talk to but reasonable...ie After hearing your input, I heeded your advice about the vodcast language and went further to remove additional language after I thought about what you said, because I understood and agreed with your point. I have been working diligently to improve the article and I am sure you have helpful insight to offer. With my appreciation. Clou2epstein (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Milwaukee Herold-Wisconsin Historical Society

Hi! I hope you are doing well. I came across an article about the Milwaukee Herold in the Wisconsin Historical Society. There was one problem: it was from a German language Wisconsin newspaper and written in German and it had something to do with 50 years. If you type in Milwaukee Herold in the society's website you should find it. Also a Wisconsin Historical Society marker was dedicated Monday September 28, 2009 in honor of former Governor Patrick Joseph Lucey in Ferryville, Wisconsin. The former governor was there. I thought you might be interested. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lockwood's page

Hello there Orangemike. Your help and suggestions to improve this article's been greatly appreciated. Can you take another look at it again for me please. I've been collaborating with other helpful editors these past few weeks/months and I hope somehow I've made the necessary adjustments and improvements with their help. Does it still sound or read like an advertisement? This's been going on for quite a while now, and I know the article, probably has issues still that are keeping it at that. I hope you'd have time to guide me through it again and resolve these other issues. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Orangemike. I'm not sure though if I did your last instruction correctly - wikilinking. Pardon me if I did it wrong. Thanks again. Jxc5 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I did add the internal links today and some other. Do you think it's good to go? Are there any other things that need to be wikified? Please let me know. Thank you for your time and help. Jxc5 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tia911

Saw your warning here; No need to monitor this user's edits, as I've blocked them indef as an obvious sock of LadyLashes (talk · contribs). FYI, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jnl0031

As you suspected Jnl0031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is here for public relations purposes on behalf of Affiliated Computer Services. She contacted me via unblock-en-l requesting unblocking. I have counseled her extensively with respect to how to conduct herself in such a situation. I will monitor her editing closely. Fred Talk 22:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Eckinc

Hey, I just noticed something: what do you think the odds are this is Wade Eck who's listed as the CEO of MMA HEAT (an article he's created and work on along with related articles)? If he is, would that have any impact on the deletion of File:Karyn Bryant 1324.jpg (as in, should it be F11'd (no permission) instead of F9'd)? Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The odds are 100%. Wade Eck is the CEO of Ecktomic, Inc., http://www.eckinc.com, and the company is also doing business as MMA H.E.A.T. The Wikipedia user Eckinc represents Mr. Eck's companies. Eckinc (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian artists - who is notable?

Dear Mike, thank you for your comments on the article "Mickola Vorokhta". Surely he is not Rafael. But there are many people at the Wikipedia pages who never get such achievements in the art as this 62 years old artist. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandr_Guristyuk - this person has no artworks in the Ukrainian or other museums, his work never was bought by the Ministry of Culture. He is even not a member of National Art Union. Notable? OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borys_Buryak - is he notable? OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychajlo_Dmytrenko Who it was? In Chicago Museum of Ukrainian Modern Art you could find hundreds of such notable artists. OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Filippov OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Garin - of course he's not living person but only Californians remember him OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruslan_Korostenskij Who is he? OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Kamennoy OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha_Putrya - many children are died from cancer & leucemia but do you think this small child was/is notable? OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Podervyansky - there is very famous Ukrainian man but his original artworks are ... very awesome. He is not a painter. OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Padal

May be there are some other similar notable painters - I have not checked all them. Could you specify why all listed people are notable and why Mickola Vorokhta - not?

Going on. At the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_composers you can see name of Svitlana Azarova. She is 33 years old composer and her name is in the list together with such great names as Lysenko or Bortniansky. She is famous? Or Mykola Suk? Or Roman_Yakub? Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan Hawley (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 October 2009

Balticon

Regarding your edit of this page (which is a work in progress), I am not sure if your succint comment indicates that you object to the content so much as the form of presentation. I am a list maker by nature, would this be better using more prose?

Riverpa (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the response, but I am still confused. I added to the article because it was flagged as a starter article needing more content. I added too much content? The events that I added are recurring events, at least for the last 6 or 25 years. I did want to expand on them more, but did not do so immediately, hoping that someone else closer to individual areas would do so. So does this article need more content now or not?

Riverpa (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of Dibidogs

Isn't this a bit harsh? I would have expected a uw-ublock template because I wouldn't call his edits promotional. This is the state of the article as he left it with his last edit. The article might well fail to prove notable, but it is certainly not spam, and I think that rather than blocking the person most likely to be able to improve it, we should allow him to work on the article either on mainspace or (if the article goes to AfD and gets deleted) in userspace. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Talboom

Hi Orangemike - I see you've added a COI template to the Eddie Talboom article and talk page. Do you think it would be possible to just have the COI warning on the talk page? I pulled out the POV and original research COI edits from the article and added reliable sources for the remaining material. I don't think that a COI tag is necessary on the article itself as it reads neutrally and if a COI editor has edited at some point in time it no longer reads as such. I think the tag on the talk page is appropriate though so that other editors are aware of the potential conflict when User:Metalboom edits the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you missed my message, but do you have any objections to me removing the COI tag from the article page only per the above? Tha tag says "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view" which I've already taken care of, so the tag is unnecessary. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 11:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears you have no objections, so I've removed the template. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 05:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Chartjackers

The article is also sourced to the BBC. Can you kindly tell me what the objection is to this? Footynutguy (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced to the Beeb's press releases, which are no more reliable sources than anybody else's. We need [[:WP:RS|reliable sources, not press releases and YouTube vids. Where is the independent coverage? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is also sourced to the programmes actual website which is part of the BBC site. There won't be that much press coverage until nearer Children in Need when the single gets released. The YouTube source are mainly the actual shows transmitted on BBC2. Footynutguy (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject's own websites are not generally reliable sources, and never serve as evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky prods

If you are going to prod articles you must say so in the edit summary. [1] Please be more careful on this important point in future. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sloppy on my part. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

CxQL and Checkmarx

Hi Orangemike,

I just updated the pages CxQL (pending deletion) and Checkmarx (still with comments). I think they are much better now (especially Checkmarx), but I want to know if I may remove the pending deletion and/or the remarks. I don't want to do it if the fixes are not good enough yet (I know the pages may then just removed). Am I in the right track? Are there any other changes I might need? I'm sure that in my next pages I will do better, this is my first try... :)

Thanks a lot in advance, Adarw (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your comments in the relevant pages' talk section. Thank you, I will fix the problems. Adarw (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but is there anything I can do to improve Checkmarx, so that it doesn't have the "citation improvement is needed" tag? Adarw (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sameera Aziz

After completely rewriting the article, I have removed the COI template as it is no longer relevant. Please keep in mind that there are currently only 2 English language newspapers being published within the borders of Saudi Arabai, and since this author writes for one of them, some minor allowances have to be made. Please also see Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Media of Saudi Arabia for more information on the reason why information about Sameera Aziz's family is included. According to law in Saudi Arabai, working women must devote equal time to their work and their family, under penalty of public beating. As such, cultural differences must be respected by inserting information about her family while discussing information about her career. With biography articles on women in Saudi Arabia, we have to be somewhat more culturally sensitive to this type of information. Best regards. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 02:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If Orangemike will permit me to respond on his talk page, I am wondering why the fact that the law in Saudi Arabia requires women to spend equal time on these 2 activities should be regarded as meaning that people writing outside Saudi Arabia must give equal prominence to them. I have read Media of Saudi Arabia several times, and briefly skimmed through the much longer Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and, contrary to OliverTwisted's assertion, I did not notice anything about "why information about Sameera Aziz's family is included". OliverTwisted seems to be implying that there is something special about Saudi Arabia which over-rules Wikipedia's normal notability requirements, but if so I should be grateful if OliverTwisted could spell out explicitly what that something is. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Family information for biographies of women is given equal weight in Saudi Arabia due to the legal requirements of women working. As such, most of the biography sources used for the article may appear to be vanity sources because they contain significant attention to the role of Sameera Aziz as a wife and mother, which is natural in the culture of Saudi Arabia. My point was that by observing cultural differences, we can move from "Shameless spamvertisement for journalist, unsalvageably hagiographic." [2] to some appropriate maintenance templates, especially after I rather mercilessly pared down the article to basic information. The author who created the article would naturally want to avoid only listing Sameera Aziz's journalistic contributions, because in Saudi culture, that would be viewed as a "hit piece," implying that Sameera Aziz was not fulfilling her obligations as a wife and mother... which in Saudi Arabia can get her beaten in a public square. As editors of the "English Wikipedia," there are going to need to be some reconciliations between Western English culture and the culture of English speaking populations in India, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. This may mean allowing a more fluid structure for biographies of persons from those cultures, or at the very least, some basic cultural sensitivity on the AfD boards. I'm sorry if my point was otherwise interpreted. At the present, the Family section of this particular article would not seem to include any information that would not appear in any other biographical stub. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 09:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Carr (psychic)

Nice. Winter is here! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:LA Emergency Management (EMD)

While I have no wish to get into an argument, I'm not sure I would support your actions with this user. The Los Angeles Emergency Management Department is a public agency, not the Acme Snake Oil Company, and I thought the information (although a copyvio) was informative rather than promotional. In the interest of "full disclosure", I have referred to this particular incident at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users in the section on speedy deletion - not as a criticism of yourself, but as an example of something that was being referred to about the usage of speedy categories. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of Lowe Alpine

I wonder if you would consider restoring this article. It's history indicates that the overt spam was recently added, and there are versions that are not blatant spam. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

HI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimb0onwheelz (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

orange.....

Thanks for the delete of my page...it took me months to compile...now to be honest i`m not going to be too hard on you as just looked at your picture and to be honest the beard makes you look like a total geek..the type of person i would expect to be in admin on wiki...i am orange mike cause i like orange... well im steve prick because i cant stand pricks like you who distroy peoples work...without people you are nothing!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newshomesarchive (talk • contribs) 07:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Retirement?

Hi Mike,

Just to avoid any possible offence on your part, I'd like to point out that my rant against admins is directed against a whole bunch of people, and you're not one of them. We've had our disagreements, I'm still not sure I trust the speed of your trigger finger, but on the topic of "bad articles on good subjects" I might even have come round to your point that it's better to delete and start again!

Throughout it though, you've always struck me as an honourable guy who had firm principles and stood by them. You certainly taught me the importance of WP:AGF, both as a principle (which I might guess your Quaker background encourages?), and also as a pragmatic policy that simply does make things work better in the limited communications bandwidth of teh intawebs. Sadly though, I don't have quite your talent at implementing it!

The retirement flag is pretty serious. I might keep it up, I might not. It's not just about this last farce, it's something I've increasingly felt for a while now. I've worked pretty hard on a few articles over the last couple of weeks and although a few people with similar interests (engineering history) did comment appreciatively on them, it's not about appreciation: I'm too selfish for that, I'm just doing it because I find having a direction for studying something more interesting than just reading books in their order on the pile.

What upsets me though is the general lack of respect for content. There's an obsession with policy and politics, and too many people lose sight of the encyclopedia. I'm personally affronted when vandals do something to harm that, but "admins" (as a sheer generalization, sorry!) would rather pick on some easy policy issue from either side that they can latch on to to do something about, than they would look at which is beneficial or harmful. There's the old saw that those who can do, those who can't teach. I think hereabouts too many of them become admins. Then as they are admins, some adminning must be done! No matter whether it's good or bad, if it's a policy they can latch onto, they get to play the big role.

We've lost good editors: Peter Damian (who deserved better), MickMacNee who writes great stuff, only to have them slated for removal as soon as he publishes them - when he's between blocks of course, because this continual antipathy to his good work would wind anyone up. So some editors go to the Dark Side. Why bother with WP:AGF, when no one assumes it of you yourself? I'd rather not go down that route, hence the retirement.

I'll probably be back. I don't have the strength of will to resist! Far too much of a geek. A break probably would be beneficial though. Either way though, you were one of the good guys. Thankyou. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion appreciated

Hi Orangemike; at your convenience, would you have a look at [3]? A vanity piece in need of copyediting at the least, but has some legitimate references. Question is, are they enough to meet notability? JNW (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hipstamatic

Here is another article you should look at: Hipstamatic. I do not know if this is a hoax or the real thing. I always thought Wikipedia should have a wall of fame for the best hoaxes and this may be one of them. Hope you are well-RFD (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue

I don't want to start an edit war. I've tried to engage Esoteriqa but didn't have much luck. What would be the next step in a case like this? Rees11 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-resolved now. Thanks for your help. Keep up the good anti-spam work. Rees11 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin Legislature

I look at the current Wisconsin Legislature and I share your concern. For example there is no article about Michael Huebsch who was speaker of the Wisconsin Assebly when the Republicans were in control in 2007. It sounds like there is some backlog. Also I know the feeling about being bugged about an article that should be written. For example Christopher Sholes who invented the typewriter-he was in both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature. But he also has an older brother Charles Sholes who was also in both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and served as mayor of Kenosha, Wisconsin. It bugged me that Charles Sholes did not have an article. I finally wrote an article about Charles Sholes. There are some other articles that should be written. For example in the Coon Valley, Wisconsin article there is a redlink for Brian Rude who was in both houses of Wisconsin Legislature and served as President of the Senate. The same can be said about the late Paul Offner who also served in the Wisconsin Legislature both houses and later resigned from the Senate to return to public health. Paul Offner died 4-5 years ago. I will see what I can do-hopefully some wikipedians will come a long to help-Thanks-RFD (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Escape Route

This seems to be an advance EP with songs from the upcoming album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Shawn Mitchell

Hi Mike I was wondering if this complies with Wikipedia procedures.

During an August 31st 2009 hearing of a legislative committee tasked with investigating alleged abuses by the state’s workman’s compensation insurer, Mitchell told a witness at the conclusion of his testimony that if he was nervous he should “relieve that” by “imagining the chairwoman in her underwear.” [Chairwoman: State Senator Morgan Carroll]. [1]

"It certainly looks like Shawn Mitchell singled out the chairwoman of the committee, Sen. Carroll, with his sophomoric, suggestive comment for no other reason than her gender and position of authority. How childish of him to insult not just Sen. Carroll, but women everywhere who daily face the silliness of sexism and trivialization in our culture," said former Lt. Governor Gail Schoettler. "As a former elected official who's been subjected to behavior like Mitchell's in the past, I believe that we have to call this out every time it happens, and we absolutely must hold elected officials who stoop so low accountable." A Colorado state senator has apologized for suggestive remarks he made about the chairwoman of a legislative committee earlier this month.

Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell of Broomfield apologized September 18, 2009 and said his remarks about Democratic Sen. Morgan Carroll of Aurora were inappropriate and unprofessional. Mitchell says he was trying to make a witness feel comfortable when he said that when he's nervous about testifying before a committee, "I relieve that by imagining the chairwoman in her underwear." Carroll told Mitchell she accepted the apology. DENVER (AP)

References: [1] Quote by former Lt. Governor Gail Schoettler [2] Denver (AP)

Eyeonyou (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting this. Useight (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Upper case smith

You're right, of course. It should be E. E. Smith, not e.e.smith (e.e.cummings we had to do at school, but I can't say I've read him since). I doubted anyone would get that reference :) you definitely win the balloon. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

the lensman blasted
into space
his ship will surely
win the race
              — e e smith               — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Common bond, Bond of association

Thank you for fixing the common bond redlink at Prince George's Community Federal Credit Union. I have just created a redirect at Common bond to Bond of association in case anyone else adds the phrase "common bond" to an article about a credit union. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Thank you for clarifying the blacklisting of a site. Although it is still unclear to me how "partisan" character of a site can be determined simply because it is a wordpress site. I can buy a server with a domain name and can still be as or more partisan :-) Is there a way to request for admins to look into the site and then consider for an un-ban?

Thank you! Vinter-light (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Improving article Jeffrey Hyland

Hello there Orangemike. This article has the same issue as Lockwood's (advert.). I believe a good deal of rewriting has also been done here, with the help of other editors as well. I hope you'll also have some time to review the material for me? If there are other improvements I need to work on, I'd be glad to know your inputs/advice. Thanks a lot. Jxc5 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Christie's Estates

I think it might make it due to 3rd part coverage of the sales. I gave it the needed trim, or, more exactly, the needed major cutting & rewording. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Woodland Fairy Acres

Hi Orangemike,

Thank you for your response. I am currently working with one of your other editors to create a Woodland Fairy Acres article that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. I greatly appreciate the continued help and guidance from all of the editors I've spoken with.

Thanks so much again!

Flwr petal fairy (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed attempting to help and see if we can find sources and such to establish notability. Would you be willing to restore it so Flowr can userfy it with help? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

EKSRTD

Since you deleted EKSRTD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EKSRTD, would you mind closing the related AFD? Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:The Idiot Bastard Son

Nice work Mike, how long before User:Titties & Beer turns up I wonder. RMHED 02:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with The Fellowship

I noticed you weighed in on the content dispute and offered a comprise position. Well as you know, there is a bit of a content dispute in that article especially between myself and a pair of editors (one of which when I checked his talk page showed a history of hostility), User:Goethean and User:Frankpettit. Check the article history page, those two have basically been working as a tag team to work around the 3RR. That aside, would you be willing to informally mediate this dispute on the talk page? I am totally willing to accept your comprise opinion on the dispute. EricLeFevre (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I had to edit the last post, I incorrectly accused someone else who is not involved in the dispute, my apologies. EricLeFevre (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag team :)

Hi, Orangemike! I think we have a bit of a tag-team going on here. I seem to be finding a fair number of role/promotional accounts, and you seem to be the one blocking em. So, I think we're a tag team! Basket of Puppies 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as neither of us falls into the deadly trap of automatically deleting, without giving fair thought to the realities of the case. I was once praised for the rapidity of my deletions, and this bothered me a great deal (as I think it should). Sure, there are the easy ones (the "my girlfriend is a hot chick" and "buy our Cialis" articles); but there are genuinely difficult cases as well. I take pride as a "deletionist" in the number of articles I've been able to save from unwarranted speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OM, yes, I very much agree. So far, my reports of username violations have been pretty obvious. The more complicated ones, such as this I go to the source and try to find out more information. Cheers! Basket of Puppies 21:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Foundations of the Spanish kingdoms

Foneio has reinstated the article that was replaced with a redirect. I've replaced the redirect to the History of Spain article. Maybe you could help keep an eye on the article? Is there some kind of warning or action that we could take? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Magana

Sir, Why was the post Frank Magana removed. I would think that you would warn or give some explanation for such an action. I had to search rather rigorously to find out that you had deleted it. He is a significant character in that he was the Artist that Created many of [Frank Lloyd Wright] and [Bruce Goff] Buildings, art and furniture. Its amazing that a man that does the work for the famous artists isn’t mentioned anywhere. We were in the midst of linking him to many well known architects and artists when you deleted him. If you personally do not know the artist is that a reason to delete him? Do you have that expertise? Please replave the article so I may save it off before you delete it permanently.

Thank you.

(Mark.crabtree (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Hi Mike

Orange Mike my name is Darnell Clark I've been trying to create a page for the Dukes of DaVille and it has been deleted. I am not doing the page for a shameless advertisement plow. I want to make sure when people are researching this group they can find their information and it can be located and archived on this particular encyclopedia. I feel that the Dukes of Daville have enough credits and enough relevant contant to have a page on Wikipedia. Please let me know what we are either lacking or what we need to take out to allow this page to exist. Thanks for your time and consideration. <redacted e-mail> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdarnelclark (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about the same article, right? The one that starts, "The Dukes of DaVille offer audiences a balanced blend of excitement, enlightenment, and entertainment with a live show that's guaranteed to keep them begging for more. Their high-energy performance displays a chemistry that has been cultivated throughout the course of their childhood bond. With the Dukes infectious hooks and dope tracks they create fans instantly. Their lyrical delivery and rhyme scheme gains much respect from most skilled writers and seasoned vets."? That is a totally shameless advertising plug, and has no place in this encyclopedia. I assume you have some connection with them, and am doing you the courtesy of accepting that you actually believe them to be notable. If this is the case, I suggest you make a request for the creation of an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers and bands, providing solid reliable sources (not blogs, Facebook, etc.) and disclosing your conflict of interest in the matter, if any. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't Delete Peoples Work, help Them

Mike, don't be rude and delete my pages, please give me back the info on Jeffrey Chase that you deleted. I am willing to learn and get the page up, but deleting it is a waste of my time. Contact me and lets work through this for a positive solution. Thank you! PeopleWriter (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)PeopleWriter

Mike, help me with the Jeffrey Chase bio. I want your help on this one, he meets the criteria you referenced too, I will build it in the User page first then present it for publishing. Thank you! PeopleWriter (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)PeopleWriter

There is nothing there to create an article with. This was spam, along with 21 Magazine. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, help me build this house. I don't have any bricks, but I have all this straw, and a truckload of dandelion fluff to hold it together.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree please help people with their wiki's rather than deleting work.

User/talk page redirects

Encountered a redlink "User:OrangeMike" (with capital M), so followed it and created userpage & talkpage redirects to you, to catch such miscapitalisations. If for any reason this is not desirable or helpful, please accept my apologies and delete at will. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices

You summarily deleted this, even though there had been a protest. I would have liked to put the new content in the redirect, but it's gone now. There was a discussion on categories that I am aware of, but not on this article or the subject matter as far as I know. Your arbitrary, and unilateral action will not stand. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

7&6=thirteen needs to calm down, but I do believe that your (Orangemike's) interpretation of the article as an effort to circumvent the CfD is incorrect. The article was actually created by the nominator of the CfD and used as justification for deletion of the category as the information would not be lost. An argument could be made for merger into Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, but I'd not like to see the table and time-line graph lost. -- ToE^T 15:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of "the prior decision." There was certainly no intent to circumvent anything. I know only of the prior decision (which I strenuously opposed) regarding Categories.

This was all referenced and was not "original research." Your ironic suggestion that I could use it would be more sincerely appreciated if I could access it. Indeed, I think this belongs in the article where there is the new redirect.

I would also note that the warning of he impending deletion said that it would not happen if there was an objection,. Evidently those rules (and promises) don't apply to you.

I have no idea where to access the deleted article. Cann you send me a link?

I apologize for any misunderstanding. But I do not like being steamrolled, and that is what happened here7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

I would also add that I was content with it being a "list." All of my edits TODAY were in direct response to the ultimatum to improve the article or have it be deleted. Well, I improved it; and you deleted it. No quid pro quo there. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

Moved the old version to User:7&6=thirteen/OldListArticle for your convenience. Hope this helps. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

Formal Complaint About To Be Filed Against You

You have deleted my work that I had been working on. Please "Respect" my time as I will respect yours. I didn't want to use the heading above to be viewed as a threat in anyway, I am using it to get your attention to help me. I asked the other "admin" people who like to "delete' pages rather than create them to help during this process, I have spent numerous hours trying to work with "admin" with little success. If I don't get a positive solution in 24 hours, I will be filing a formal complaint with Wikipedia. I didn't create the page two years ago, I am merely adding information and solid references along with authorized images only to have them deleted. You want to set up a conference call with me, I will gladly give you my number. Please don't hide behind the internet by being introverted. I realize a lot of you are overweight, unhealthy, and/or not happy with your lives in general (I can help you turn your life around, just ask).

I agree the 21 Magazine page needs to be worked on, but to be fully deleted? I am not looking for any rebuttals from you, I am looking for a solution. If you have the time to delete and make negative comments, you have the time to also help me and make a difference. The point is, please don't burn a bridge with me, help me and we can move forward. Modelmanager (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager

If you were actually interested in pursuing this matter, you should have participated in the discussion of it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 Magazine, as you were invited to do. Ad hominem attacks upon editors do not accomplish anything substantial. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I did participate in the discussion with only help from one guy! (Footnote: I noticed you like to shoot from the hip on Wiki via my research, So I will "KEEP MY COOL" on my end and hopefully you will change your ways on your end). Kevin was the only Admin guy to help on my page, I got taken out from 4 to 5 admin people going "delete" crazy like a bunch of Commandos including yourself. One Admin guy even has a Stat Graph on his User page bragging about how many pages he has deleted with no stats on pages he has built or help edit. Why is this appear to be a game for some Admin people? Quick to shoot you down to put another notch on the belt, but not quick to help! I am looking for help here, not to waste my time or your time. I am relentlessly looking for help! I am not on the right or on the left, I am in the center moving forward!

...."Words without Actions are the Assassins of Idealism"" POINT BLANK QUESTION MIKE! Are you going to help me with my page? Modelmanager (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager

I am trying to help you.

1. According to the revision history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 Magazine, you never participated in that discussion at any time.

2. The article as deleted was an advertisement for the magazine, with no assertion of any kind of notability. I would not have speedily deleted it, as it just barely (in my opinion) fell short of being irredeemably spammy. You would have to take that up with the editor who did speedily delete it, which would be User: Athaenara.

3. If you wish to appeal the speedy deletion, you would need to file such an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you want to oppose the original AfD nomination, you would have to participate in that discussion at the link provided to you repeatedly.

4. I would, of course, help to insure that an article on this or any such magazine, if it were created and sustained, continued to meet all our standards of formatting, grammar and style, as well as neutral point of view, verifiability, and reliable sourcing; such is my duty, such is my idealism. I would not help create an article on such a magazine, as I consider them abominable, decadent and generally despicable, catering to the lowest and most vile aspects of American popular culture today. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Magana

Hello Mike,

Is there a place for this type of article? We would like to list all of his contibutions to many artists and community projects. I think I remember a Biography wiki or something. What kind of documentation do you need? Blue prints of the houses he built and pictures of the Wright furninture he made for the Price tower?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you.

(Mark.crabtree (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

I believe Biographicon is still running. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of list vs. category

Hi Orangemike,

Re: this. The CfD discussion, which I closed, was to delete the category. That decision has no bearing on whether the list should have been speedily deleted or not. In fact, the list pre-dated the category and one argument in the discussion was that the category could be deleted because the list existed. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I just noted that there was a discussion above about this. I'm not otherwise "complaining" about your action, just saw the notice on WAS's page and was giving you a heads up, but I see your head is probably already up over it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vocera Communications

Hi, this article is being heavily edited by IPs originating from the PR firm: Fleishman-Hillard who appear to be the PR firm for Vocera Communications (example). We're currently edit warring so I'm going to take a step back, if you could take a look it would be appreciated. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear mike

You have marked my page "the necronomicon" as vandalism and an obvious hoax? In doing so, you have discredited my beliefs, and the belief of an ancient culture. I would appreciate if you would have an open mind to other religions besides your own. You are very insulting, and close minded. My page was completly seperate from other "necronomicon" posts because every post I see marks them as fiction and or false.

I as a person believe in the Necronomicon, I practice the rituals of the book, and had proof of it's existance clearly from nazi archives. Seriously why are you trying to hide the powers of this book. H.P. lovecraft had to much information on this book to create it himself. He obviously came across one of the originals, and practiced the rituals.

Which is where he got his info. once the gates are opened the watchers can answer any question you seek. I find it offensive that on "christianity" posts, it does not say fictional characters are involved. Because there is no lagitamate proof to thier existance, besides a book. You are claiming that a book(the necronomicon) doesnt exist. You would be insulted if I were to say that "christianity was a hoax and further more a plot to turn people to a false profit."

Please unblock my page so that the truth can be told, it is also my right to have freedom of speech.

And further more "Orange" is the most obnoxious and hidious color in the spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punktothec (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now, an actual article on the history of the Necronomicon would be fascinating. The husband of a friend of mine alleges that he and a friend created an artefact which they claimed was the original Necronomicon, which they attempted to get into the archive at the Library of Congress, and I'd love to know whether they succeeded or not. Given that the Rennes-le-Château papers resided for over 30 years in the Bibliotheque Nationale before being exposed as a forgery, and given that (according to the h of f) the person they were passing it off to had as I recall no idea what the Necronomicon was, they might have succeeded. Don't think they made any false profits though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• befor my article was deleted i had numerous pictures of SS soldiers holding the necronomicon.

which they took from the Bibliotheque Nationale durring raids. As we all know Hitler was a member of the thrule society, and a beleiver in the occult. There is just no way that a white man from brooklyn hieghts create this book. The Sumerians created the necronomicon. end of story call it a hoax... what ever. the truth is in the rituals. christ is the false profit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punktothec (talk • contribs) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The depths of your "knowledge" may be displayed by your impression that Howard Phillips Lovecraft, Gent. of Providence, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, was "a whte man from brooklyn hieghts"!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

HPL did live in Brooklyn — Red Hook, not the Heights — in 1924-1926 after marrying Sonia, though he wasn't happy there. It inspired his story "The Horror at Red Hook." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew that; but he was not from Brooklyn; one of those "just 'cause the cat had her kittens in the oven, don't make 'em biscuits!" kind of situations. HPL was from and of Providence and Providence only, to an extent most of us can merely imagine. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that he wrote in one of his letters, "I am Providence" — and that's engraved on his headstone. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• and to reply to you mike. Calling me ignorant is also insulting.

i have known of Robert Bloch and the whole lovecraft circle i onw H.p. lovecraft books. I could go on and on about everything he and his friends done. but the point is there is no proof to say he just made it up. when his story also goes along with sumerian beleif structures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punktothec (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike: I see The Necronomicon is protected as deleted; may I suggest protecting it as "#REDIRECT Necronomicon" instead? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd think it non-controversial that HPL's Necronomicon was a (fictional) grimoire; cf. "Owen Davies's Top 10 Grimoires". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto that. If I recall, there's even one instance where Lovecraft has a character recount a list of fabled grimoires including the Necronomican Necronomicin that wierd book. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Trypophobia

I was quite excited this evening to discover that I wasn't the only person in the world to have a peculiar aversion to certain images and objects containing small holes or crevices. My daughter had run across the word trypophobia somewhere or other and described the condition to me. I was astonished that this is a phenomenon experienced by others. I first noticed it when I was 9 or 10--it was more or less confined to the clustered dots on the surface of artichoke hearts. I get a similar reaction to cracked, dry desert beds, trabeculated bone, and porous rocks. I'm a physician, and natural skeptic--but you missed the boat here. Understandably, I guess--it's a peculiar thing, for which there's no literature, but surely not the only odd syndrome out there for which the internet is the perfect tool for uncovering.

206.248.167.220 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment to User:Handws

Hi Orange Mike - regarding this post of yours, I just wanted to let you know that the account has been abandoned by the user, so they will probably not receive your message. (I advised them in IRC that their username was a violation of policy, and they have registered a new one. Regrettably, they left the channel before I could ask what the new name was.) However, I did also inform them of the same issues you have raised and, as far as I could tell, they seemed to understand. Regards, AJCham 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

StrongLifts

I put the {hangon} tag plus i was willing to clean it up, why was it deleted without a consensus? Portillo (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

I thought this user's request for unblock seemed pretty legit, but I thought I would get your opinion first as the blocking admin. Cheers! TNXMan 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'm curious as to what personal assertions I made to the Dragons article. Since I mentioned very clearly that the article is biased, and directed in an atheistic/non-neutral viewpoint, its curious why you redirect that claim to me. Also, you reassert my opinion by adding, "we're trying to be serious". If you wanted to be serious you shouldn't add "millions of years" fairytales as if its fact. If "dragons aren't real because dinosaurs lived 65 millions years ago based on unreliable datings of rocks, and assuming rocks assign fossils dates" isn't baised towards atheism and secular opinion rather than real science, then what is? I'm not concenred with a reply or if what I wrote was deleted. I wanted to make it very clear how biased wikipedia is. If people are personally biased towards atheism themself, then thats there life. But adding everything in wikipedia from that viewpoint is nonsense. Next time you'd like to be serious, consider not calling yourself Orangemike and wasting time on the internet writing meaningless articles. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"We don't ignore that fact that there are people out there who belive in "creation science" and werewolves and channeling."

I personally don't care, but I will point out for your sake that mocking isn't an argument against or for something. Putting Creation Science in the same category as mythical creatures and superstious beliefs shows your viewpoint quite well.

"But we don't take their views into account when writing articles about other topics. Instead, we rely on the best available scientific consensus. That's what scientists do."

Correct. You don't take into account truth. You take into account Atheist's views. The general population of scientists are atheist( non-neutral). Taking opinions over facts isn't science. The consensus that molecules evolved into man is held high in the scientific community, but can't be backed up with science, hence, it is a non-neutral viewpoint. The consensus that Gravity exists is a fact, hence it is neutral. Origins are seperate from science, as science can't explain what happened in the past. It is only a "how something works" tool. Religous beliefs( including atheism/humanism) is for Origins. But using a specific religous belief that dominates scientific fact is biased and makes out science itself as a way to market their(scientist's) beliefs.

"That doesn't mean that the typical Wikipedia editor is an atheist (I myself am a devout Quaker and former lay preacher); but it means that we are trying to create a compendium of facts, not religious dogmas."

I wish that were so, but yet I continue to see Atheist/Humanist ideas on all aspects including those who write the Religous sections. We'd all be happier when religous dogmas are erased, but sadly that is not so. You will still see teachers and proffesors preaching about how man evolved from monkeys. If you wanted to create articles based on truth, you wouldn't do so by using presuppositions that atheism is a fact.

"If this makes you uncomfortable, you would probably be more comfortable at Conservapedia."

Once more, I am not interested is wasting my life writing or reading meaningless articles. I only pointed out the truth in hope that atheists didn't rule over these baords and that someone would agree that presuppositions on atheism is a driving force in culture and thought. Example: Beliving Dragons and Dinosaurs aren't connected based soley on the idea humans lived millions of years apart. Yet if that weren't the case, you'd see humans mention dinosuars throughout history, which we do. That is why you have many countires spanning nations and cultures talking about the same creature. Yet based on your self interest and Popular Opinion, you think me explaining their connection is a matter of perspective rather than truth, and that an article talking about the "mythical creature known as Dragons" is more important than the fact that man and dinosaurs co-exstisted. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Daft.ie Article Deletion

Hi Mike,

I noticed that you deleted the page on Daft.ie. I'm one of the founders of the company - the wikipedia page has never been written/modified by anyone in the company so any advertising material in there was unintentional.

Some points on why I think the company page should feature on Wikipedia.

- Daft is one of the most visited websites in the country

• Irish Internet Association: http://www.iia.ie/news/item/1303/daft-ie-remains-the-most-visited-property-website-in-ireland/

- We are long established company with deep brand recognition in Ireland and internationally. Our economic analysis features regularly in press. See Time magazine and Reuters articles below:

• http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1920285_1920320_1920255,00.html
• http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssAdvancedMedicalEquipment/idUSLK23054520080820

- Other proof of importance/relevance

• Daft.ie powers property verticals on Ebay.ie, TV3 (national TV station), Eircom.net (Largest Telco) http://ebay.daft.ie/, tv3.daft.ie, eircom.daft.ie
• Acquisition of competitior: http://www.irishpressreleases.ie/2008/06/23/daftie-acquires-competing-website/
• Investment in Ireland's largest community website Boards.ie: http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-irish-community-site-boardsie-gets-investment-from-daft-media/
• Irish Internet Association on the launch of our sister site rent.ie: http://www.iia.ie/news/item/1059/daft-media-launches-rent-ie/
• Daft.ie has been awarded the title of Fastest Growing Irish Tech Company in the Deloitte Fast 50 awards: http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_IE/ie/news/ie-pressreleases-en/press-release/10a18d6007c54210VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm

I'm not sure what was in the previous article, perhaps you could undelete it and I can update the article to remove the text that was 'advertising'.

Regards,

Brian

Brian982582 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Who

the fuck are you buddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolutionist6 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 October 2009

Jennifer Nicole Lee - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee (2nd nomination)

Result = keep. Painfully.- Sinneed 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

COI? Virtually every word in there comes from either myself or an admin who also followed the AfD there. We have steadily tossed out the POV bilge copy/pasted from the (copyrighted) promo site. Once the talk page is back, maybe you could explain your reasoning? I have proposed and no one has objected to firm reliably-sourced-only editing. There are at least 3 of us watching it pretty closely. The spam has (at last) died down. I don't see the value in the COI flag. *shrug* - Sinneed 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

COI - Jennifer Nicole Lee

Regarding this COI tag, several folks have been keeping a close eye on this article and I think its claims are pretty much all sourced properly. Yes, there is some effort to make it promotional, but so far it has not been successful. Can you elaborate on the placement of the COI tag?  Frank  |  talk  14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Great minds, etc. ;) I gave it a section on the article talk page. - Sinneed 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Orangemike.  Frank  |  talk  14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As Frank said, thank you. :) And thank you both for doing the admin thing.- Sinneed 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Here's the Infernus article, where you could just extract the citation for the rape business and put it into the Quantos Possunt ad Satanitatem Trahunt article if you're up and ready to invest some energy into modifying the latter article if absolutely necessary. If the likes of yourself and other such people on wikipedia feel the impulsion to point out problems on potentially the most pedantic of grounds, then you might as well fix them and not confine yourself to the box. Dark Prime (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page, I made the decision to include the reference after I read that link you gave and saw that it pertained to biographical information about anybody on any wikipedia page, not just articles about the subject. Dark Prime (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You blocked

You blocked my account Nazisasquatch for a reason that Nazi is insulting. My name is Nazis (PRONOUNCED Nahh-sis) and I find sasquatch an amusing word and I left out the extra s. Please unblock it or tell me how to get my username changed so it's good or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.143.82 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Instructions for this have already been posted to your userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Teaching with Facebook

Hey OrangeMike, sorry if my page violated policies. I'm teaching a Web 2.0 class called "Beyond Facebook" and I just wanted my students to have the ability to work with a live Wiki article. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilk2695 (talk • contribs) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to send my students off to edit pages that will probably revert their changes within a few minutes. But, I suppose I must. Thanks for the advice. Wilk2695 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2009 Wilk2695

Students understand that this is not Facebook, but it is also quite difficult to find an article about something with which they are familiar enough to make substantive edits. Anyway, I've scrapped the project and I'll just pass out usernames for the wiki on our server. 150.182.231.93 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Wilk2695

AFD for Mr. Billion

No rationale for deletion was provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Billion. The assumption is that it is for notability reasons but perhaps as nominator you can make clear with an explicit statement. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Solomon Times Online

It would have been courteous had you 1. notified me of this article's impending deletion per wiki convention ("There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination"), and 2. mentioned (aside from the general and not very helpful Wikipedia:CSD#A7 waffle) why an online newspaper that is of importance for the peoples of the Solomon Islands and surrounding area was not sufficiently notable for our project. Apart from it being self-evidently notable, is not the fact that it is cited as a reference five times in an article about the 2009 Samoa earthquake sufficient? I'd appreciate your views before I recreate the page. Best regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Answering on your talk page; will point out that this is not a newspaper, it is a website. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very reasonable response. The tone bit was with respect to the fact that I felt I should have been warned about the deletion of the article re the protocol I quoted above; but then looking into the website a bit more I realised it's really just a spam/business op site so you were totally justified. That's about the sum of it! Keep up the good work, Ericoides (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit recreated as Human disguise

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Snowcovered

Hi Orange Mike, I have edited the "entrepreneurship" paragraph to remove content that was referenced with blog posts, after learning more about the citation policy. How else can this article be improved to avoid deletion? Thanks, Audiohifi (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Halloween in the Castro

Thanks for checking out the article Halloween in the Castro. I'm new and a little intimidated by another editor. If you could watch the talk and edits, I'd appreciate it. Andy54321 05:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy54321 (talk • contribs)

Advice needed

I recently came across a publication that had an article that was largely plagiarized from several WP articles. I realize that WP isn't copyrighted, but it is licensed. The Creative Commons license states, "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work." In this case, that wasn't done. My question: Does anyone at WP care that its material is used in violation of the license? If so, what to do? --Sift&Winnow 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vinogradovisoleksii page removing

Please let me know a reasons why you removing my page? There is page to check with editors format of correct pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinogradovisoleksii (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The two articles you wrote which have been deleted were both advertisements for a company you founded in 1999. See our rules about conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Your previous edits of my articles were in good form, but your recent ones seem rude; there's no need to call anything I've written pretentious or prod fun at accidental misspellings. I thank you for your contributions, but please just help me improve the articles, don't mock them. Also: your name cropping up has prompted me to reach for an orange box of mac and cheese for lunch. Kafkacafe (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that the misspelling was Beer's, not yours; didn't mean to mock a fellow Midwestern Wikipedian. I do hope that it was Wisconsin cheese, not some lesser frommage. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Trader Joe's Wisconsin Cheddar, in fact. Happy early winter, neighbor, and thanks. I'll probably pester you for more guidance in my contributions as time goes on. Kafkacafe (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In helping to establish notability for my article on Christopher Michael Beer, I have WP:LOCALINT to reference: "Sources from local papers and other materials found within the city or town can be used, and may even be exclusively used to establish notability." And..."Most likely, an article on a local interest will be created by someone who lives in the area, has previously lived there, or has spent a significant amount of time there. This is perfectly acceptable, and in fact encouraged, provided that those creating these articles are aware of these guidelines". With the MPR and KFAI interviews, would this at least be enough to get the proposed deletion tag removed? Kafkacafe (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to contest the afd of Christopher Michael Beer, but I guess I just need some further clarification as you never told me how it didn't satisfy the local interest notability. Thank you! Kafkacafe (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Page Removal

I was wondering if there was any way to retrieve content deleted when the Chattanooga Stand and CreateHere entries were removed? Additionally, I was wondering why the pages were deleted? Was it nominated? Many thanks. Veronique.bergeron 15:32, 2 November 2009

Young People's Socialist League

If your able to reference the other information in the article, please do cause i can't find any references for them. --TIAYN (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything that is not referenced by inline citations and/or references. --TIAYN (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan

Hello, Orangemike … I think that you may have deleted User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan in error when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevin Millan … that was the user's sandbox that several editors were helping the user to fix so that it might be resubmitted … I don't see how closing the AfD also called for the deletion of a user's sandbox … please restore it.

Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)}

I agree with you that it "it reeks of COI and fails WP:BIO", but the point is, it's a user's sandbox, and one should not apply G11 in user space, IMHO … how else can they learn? :-) — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at 138.88.125.101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disruptive anon editor 75.57.175.7

Hello again, Orangemike … Might I trouble you to keep an eye on 75.57.175.7 (talk · contribs)? They have twice removed the {{AfD}} from Stan Helsing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and may need to be blocked if they continue their disruptive edits … Thnx! — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources in Jeffrey Hyland's Page

I've added some secondary/third-party sources about the topics in this article. I just hope the context that these sources present may be good enough to be considered as reliable. I need your inputs please. I truly appreciate your time guiding me around. Thank you for all the help. Jxc5 (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry about that. I saw that he had deleted a section someone else had put up where they had stated it would be nice to inform users if he started a mediation that involved them. I put it back and added my own comment about it, but didn't notice that I had accidentally taken away a comment by another user. Again, so sorry about that. Glad you caught it! Anakinjmt (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol

I see you or someone has taken down material relating to "The Lost Symbol: Found" - I think this resolves the issue. Thanks for this. I deleted your message from my talk page as it seems to me this is actioned and solved. Graemedavis (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Wiseguy edits

You wrote:

This goes against my editorial reflexes, but them's the rules.

I prefer to yield to my "editorial reflexes" than to a rule lacking in common sense. I have done this many times, and have yet to have an admin push it. In this case, I fixed a few typos and bad grammar to make the post—which had a good point—more readable. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems and advice

Thank you so much for your inputs Orangemike especially your advice. I did fix the formats of the article's footnotes and added a few more citations. Do you think they're good enough? Jxc5 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Underwood

Thank you for your opinion, Orange Mike!

EVERY newspaper article, news story, blog...EVERYTHING I have ever read or listened to about the subject mentions the cannibalism part. As for references go, do you think Underwoods words himself to the FBI in his confession video be an adequate enough source for citation?Chris Hawk (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Covenant Presbyterian Church of Chicago

I just saw where User:Covenant Presbyterian Church of Chicago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) placed a malformed unblock request to make a change of username. Since the block was for username only, I'm going to go ahead and unblock this user. I'll also remind them that they'll still have a COI, even if they change names.

If you have any objections to this, please let me know. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Substantial motion

I created a page some time ago about a theory of Mullasadra named Substantial motion which was deleted by you. I want to re-create it again because I have enough References to provide a good article about this subject/please tell me what do you think? Bbadree (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean where exactly it says in WP rules that we shouldn't have one article for such matters? Bbadree (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks , by the way anything new revealed about the fort hood shootings in US media?Bbadree (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and you know Unfortunately it will be an awful situation again for muslims and specially for Arabs in U.S. Bbadree (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Barbara McAlister (opera singer)

Don't know why this is so questionable to you, but yes, Bacone Style is a widespread Native art style covered by numerous books about Oklahoman American Indian painting. Partioners include the Tiger family, Dick West, Woody Crumbo, Acee Blue Eagle, Fred Beaver, the Rabbit family, etc., etc. Here's another source. Surely it's time to move on to other editing pursuits? -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

So sorry :) You've inspired me - I'll get on it. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Is you reelated tuh Richard Stawlmun?

Is you reelated tuh Richard Stawlmun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaankenhaarden (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Center of Excellence in Analysis on Algebraic Structures a redirect?

Hi. I was recently patrolling new pages, and wasn't sure what do to with this. I later found it deleted as an R3. I'm not sure if it was speediable, but I'm sure it wasn't a redirect when I looked at it. Would you double check the history of this one? --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't sure if it was a mistake. --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Panama News

Ug, I'm trying to create an article about a newspaper in Panama, I live in Panama, and the people of Panama, like to read it. wish you guys would get off your buttons for 5 MINUTES!

thanks, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboo.jack (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You said the following:

According to the stub I deleted, this is not a newspaper but a website. Websites without any evidence of notability are subject to speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You give me less than five minutes to write about this topic. I know you're an AMERICAN citizen, but if you were in PANAMA, a country in Latin America which has little representation on Wikipedia in English, you would think that The Panama News is an important piece of media!

I've given up, you win, I won't even bother writing the article until I have YOUR permission.

Thanks, have a good night.

Roboo.jack (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You said:

There is clearly a misunderstanding here. You must write the article first; then you put it on Wikipedia. I don't pretend to be an expert on Panama (although I have union brothers in the Zone). If you really believe this website is notable, then create a draft article in a sandbox (I'll even create one for you, at User:Roboo.jack/Panama News), and once you think it's ready to publish, drop me a note and I'll have a look at it. Fair enough? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. BTW the Panama Canal Zone has been gone for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboo.jack (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

u/d request;

As you deleted it, I just realized I'd like a copy of the contents of File talk:SGUTVlogo.jpg, would you mind resurrecting it to User talk:pd_THOR/SGUTVlogo.jpg? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Chrisisinchrist

I believe that User:Chrisisinchrist's account may have been compromised. It was under his account that the article Desmond Styles was created, which seemed to be a borderline vandalism article, but certainly fell under A7 CSD. It just seems out of character for him, since I don't see any other time that somebody nominated one of his articles for speedy deletion. I noticed that you deleted the article, so I figured I'd go to you for advice on what action to take, if any.Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 10:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Axmann8

Is asking to be unblocked. I'm soliciting input from admins involved in the original blocking. For the moment I am seeking comment at his talk page, but it may end up being a better idea to move to ANI or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Coconut doughnut

Hi, I've noticed you're a bit of a deletionist. I think I am too. What's your opinion on an article like coconut doughnut? Should every iteration of food have its own article? Thanks for your input. Pdcook (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Leanni Lei

I was about to add {{WPBiography}} to Talk:Leanni Lei when I read the message about the previous deletions. I hope this may be useful to you. -- allen四names 06:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mike Cox

Hi, would you mind taking a look at this one? Seems to me like a coi & pov pushing from single-purpose account, but I'm not sure what would be the best course of action in this case… don't want to make it into an edit war. Skarebo (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Conceptdraw products

Hello. Sorry for disturbing you, but you approved ConceptDraw MINDMAP article and I hope that you could help me.

Recently my account was blocked and all articles were deleted (except ConceptDraw PROJECT, but it got speedy which was rejected). The article which was approved by you was deleted by G11 too.

May I explain you the situation from side? I'm not trying to hide my COI or use proxies, I behave by Wiki rules, I wrote articles which were approved by Wiki admins and after that suddenly all of them deleted by Hu12. Moreover, he blocked my account because of bad history of ConceptDraw products in Wiki (but I was trying to fix this situation) and the existence of other accounts from this IP (VPN Internet gives us a single IP for all workers, but only I'm writing about our products, no puppets at all) and I'm evading block (write from my IP not using proxies) only for appealing and discussion. My goal is to provide useful and objective information about notable products that will met Wiki requirements. The existence of articles about our competitors products (which are far more promotional and have less references) confirms that it's possible.

Could you please give me any advice concerning this situation? I don't want to make things worse.

Many thanks in advance.

Sincerely yours, CSOWind. 195.138.71.154 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert B. Jones (Linguist)

This article I have now written twice. I defended it in the proper way against deletion and it was nonetheless deleted without comment. I think this is rude, inexcusible, and gives no consideration for my time. R. B. Jones is no less important than any other linguist working at a university and I think you will find hundreds have pages. Please restore the page I wrote. Tibetologist (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Alan Liefting who made that nomination. Please make your case at the appropriate venue, which is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Jones (linguist), but use stronger and more useful arguments than the deprecated "there are other articles of similar obscurity" one. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mike Cox page under unrelenting attack

Orange Mike,

Will you please take a look at the Mike Cox page and revert the story back to as it was with Skarebo last week who undid earlier vandalism? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.167.66 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil_Town deleted

Dear Mike,

You deleted the Phil Town page yesterday due to "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I am Phil Town's webmaster for both his official site and blog site. All I did was add both links to the "External links" section of Phil Town's wiki page. Phil is a bestselling author like Seth Godin. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin you'll see he has even more external pages. Can you please restore Phil Town's page and include those 2 external links? Thanks in advance for your consideration. Jronc23 Jronc23 (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Oh, and sorry if you don't like talkbacks. I just have very bad luck with people missing things. Should I just not bother for admins? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bunkface

Hi! I would like to request for you to undelete the article Bunkface, a Malaysian band consisting of four members. The band became famous after its song "Through My Window" was used in a TMNet television commercial [4]. The band won the "Rockstar Awards" and "The Ultimate SHOUT! Awards" from SHOUT! awards 2009 [5], just to name an award they won. I am willing to write the article and I have a few sources, provided that the article gets your green light to be undeleted. Kristalyamaki (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take another look at Jeffrey Hyland's page

I'm not sure if I've added enough of these citations/references needed to verify some materials in the article or to provide enough info. I hope I did. I also applied the proper formatting as you advised. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your name in (orange) lights!

Mike, on the distant offhand chance you might like it, I tinkered with the headers of your userpage and talkpage. Now, I abase myself in apologies should this prove not to be to your liking. The code to remove is on the top lines of each page and consists of "{{User:{{BASEPAGENAME}}/Title}}". These invoke files you could tinker with if you just want to change fonts/sizes/etc.: User:Orangemike/Title and User talk:Orangemike/Title. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may add my 2ø, I think it's exactly in line with Mike's motto, which I've adopted myself :) decltype (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Yes, I had that very thought in mind when making the letters not only bright orange but big, bold, and italic. Now if only I could have figured out plaid....) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Flow Factory Inc.

Why cant flow factory be created as an article no more. Pope132 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Aight just askin. Thanx Laterz. Pope132 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Getjar

What, may I ask, was your reasoning for using G11 on Getjar. Have you researched the subject at all? Please undo! -- Egil (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you to do a minimum of research on this matter before deleting? Did you?

• Have you read and understood the introduction to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators?
• Do you genuinely know the difference between reverting/editing and deleting?
• Did you review at least a minimum of the almost one million Google hits on getjar to assert that this is indeed a non-notable subject for Wikipedia.
• Did you review the edit history of the page?
• Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Assume good faith?

Please don't force me to escalate this. -- Egil (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You deleted GetJar due to G11, and Getjar due to A7. (obviously both of these should exist, one beeing a redirect to the other). So on two occasions have you deleted articles about this subject, where a trivial google search would immediately have revealed their notability. Your suggestion of me being bold and recreating the article is out of the question, I have no desire whatsoever in approaching 3RR or whatever, and anyway the right procedure is to undo the delete, restore valid content, and thereafter undo the undesireable edits. I will not do the undelete, since I created this article. -- Egil (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Huebsch\Lee Nerison

The 2 articles about Michael Huebsch and Lee Nerison members of the Wisconsin State Assembly were deleted. No reason given-any suggestions? Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

damaging edits to Russ Mitchell

Mike, would you be so kind to check out the edits that User_talk:24.159.187.122 has made to Russ Mitchell. It appears that this editor is causing formatting problems with his/her edits. I've reverted his/her edits twice, but do not wish to get into an edit war in case this editor chooses to make this edit a third time. If I am mistaken in may assessment, I would appreciate it if you would tell me this. If you would prefer not to review these edits, please suggest an alternate admin. Please reply on your talk page. Thank you in advance for your assistance, --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mike, User_talk:24.159.187.122 made the same edit to Russ Mitchell as noted above for the third time. Please, review this person's edit and take appropriate action. Thank you. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

0-16

Hi. You deleted this page- a reference to the Detroit Lions National Football League team in 2008 being (so far) the only team to lose all 16 games in the regular season- because it's an "implausible redirect". Considering that there's a redirect for 17-0- a reference to the only season where a team (the Miami Dolphins) won all of its games, including the Super Bowl, I think it's only fair that "0-16"- still synonymous with the Lions and very well known- have a similar redirect.

Thanks.-20:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomeW (talk • contribs)

Deletion of Blossom Goodchild

I'd like to know what your rationale was for deleting the entry on Blossom Goodchild, which happened just four days ago. The page had been up for over a year and continued to receive hits. Why is it gone? Hoopes (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gustaf Nordenskióld Travels in America

I am not responding to your talk.

If an article with this name could be created it has a troubling error, the final "o" needs an umlaut not an acute accent. So can we change that?

Regards, Irv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvdiamond (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Firman R. Grubb

I'd appreciate a little help here. I understand I'm not supposed to copy complete articles, but it's the only thing I have to tell Firman's great story. I thought I could use material like this if I put it in quotes and provided clear attribution to the source, which I did. I doubt that the article still exists, at least I haven't been able to find it online, so a reference wouldn't mean much as far as verification goes. I knew the man and I know the story is true! I'd appreciate some guidance, I can't re-write the story nearly as well as the reporter did! LynnSGrubb (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Respect for copyright is not a negotiable matter here; more details and advice on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I hope this is the place for my reply. If not, please advise. I don't think I have a conflict of interest, I am just a family genealogist who happens to have discovered a few family members I think are noteworthy because they have historical significance. Most are already mentioned on other pages. Firman was just the first and easiest because the work was already done by a creditable source, and I thought I could use it by giving attribution. I don't see any easy way around the problem because the article is my only source; if I rewrote it I would still have to reference it. Therefore I have requested permission from the newspaper to reproduce the article in Wikipedia. If they grant permission, would that solve the problem? LynnSGrubb (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Millwright move

What's the rationale here? I know the policy is that plurals should be avoided unless its a cat, list, or that's the only way the word is used (i.e. pants). In this case the term is regularly used in the singular form, as shown in the first sentence of the article. Wizard191 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Young Legend

Why did you propose the deletion of the Young Legend music article. The article was not used for advertisement but for info, as Young Legend's popularity is growing in his said region. Young Legend is an artist signed to a major record label, currently has a TOP 10 hit in 6 major markets across the south. What was the exact violation of the article.JardenBooks (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a particularly shameless advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Parkinson's Articles

Hello. Last week, I posted four articles on patient-related resources and initiatives relating to Parkinson's disease, which you deleted:

• Clinical Research Learning Institute
• People With Parkinson's Advisory Council
• Parkinson's Information Service
• Parkinson's Insights

The reason you gave for deleting these articles is that they didn't indicate why their subject was important. You also noted that my account might be blocked from editing if I continued to post such articles.

I'm respectful of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and I'm glad to work to make sure anything I post meets the proper criteria. At the same time, I do think the topics I created entries for are, in fact, important subjects (especially in the Parkinson's disease community and even beyond), and worthy of inclusion. (Perhaps the Parkinson's Insights entry may have been questionable since it was about a blog, but the I do feel the other subjects are worthy.) I would have appreciated it if, instead of deleting the articles immediately, you could have noted they need to be cleaned up or further edited to show that their topics were worthy of inclusion. I would have been glad to make the necessary changes (explain in better detail why they're important, cite more sources, etc.).

Do you think you could give it a second thought and restore the articles (at least the first three), and I will make any necessary revisions or changes to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? If you have any specific feedback or suggestions, I would be glad to consider them. Also, please do not block my account. I don't believe that failing to show the notability of the subjects of one's articles meets the criteria for blocking an account. Once again, I want to be respectful of Wikipedia and its guidelines, but also have the ability to post and edit articles on important topics.

Thank you for your help. Rlewinson (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Rlewinson

The problem was not lack of notability, but blatant conflict of interest; further feedback and advice on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion about using the sandbox. I knew this option existed, but wasn't sure how to use it properly. I will certainly keep this in mind for any new pages I create in the future.

Regarding the conflict of interest you note -- that's not the case here. All of the articles I posted last week that you deleted were about educational and patient empowerment initiatives relating to Parkinson's disease. These have nothing to do with JDRF, which focuses on type 1 diabetes. You will note in my contribution history that I've made just one edit to a JDRF-related page in the last 10 months (to update facts).

I certainly understand how you thought there might be an issue, but given what I've explained here, can you give a second thought to restoring my articles? Thanks again for your help. Rlewinson (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Rlewinson

Gustaf Nordenskiöld

As you will recall I am interested in Gustaf Nordenskiold. I would like for this or an edited version to be included under (1) arrest an exoneration or (2) create a new article "Gustaf Nordenskiold - Arrest and Exoneration"

The material was created by me from government sources.

MUCH TROUBLE SOME EXPENSE NO DANGER Irving L. Diamond Abstract* The controversy over Gustaf Nordenskiold and his collection, now a century old, has become a legendary story with persistent themes identifying him as a villain. The documents from which this paper is derived pinpoint from government archives precisely what Nordenskiold did, what the American government did about it, and which members and branches of our government took various actions. Fourteen American and Swedish officials are identified; one American, a federal official acting as a citizen, is also identified. Documentary and official records of how government officials of the United States and Sweden scrutinized what Nordenskiold had done and agreed that he could take his collection to Sweden are presented. Nordenskiold was arrested for trespassing on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. Because he was a “foreigner” he ought to have had a permit according to Section 2134 of U. S. Statutes. The United States District Attorney, after he was convinced by the local Indian agent to arrest Nordenskiold and after he had an opportunity to examine the situation a bit more closely, decided that the violation was merely technical. Three members of the president’s cabinet (State, Justice, and Interior) became involved and agreed quickly to drop the prosecution. The Bureau of Indian Affairs brought the charge in the first place and expressed doubts about the final outcome, but in the end did what the Secretary of the Interior wanted done. Nordenskiold found two factions among the citizens of the San Juan Valley and Durango and Mancos. Apparently, Reece McCloskey (involvement is based on a spoken record subject the written confirmation) led the anti-Nordenskiold faction. The faction on Gustaf’s side was led by B. K. Ritter, an official in the U.S. Land Office. In order for the case to be dismissed, this formula for settlement, which Nordenskiold was to follow, appears in a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs:

"In reply I transmit herewith a copy of a letter this day addressed to the Agent at the Southern Ute and Jicarilla Agency instructing him to permit the Baron to retain the relics removed with the exception of any skeletons or bones that there are in the lot, which are justly claimed by Indians as the bones of their ancestors or relatives. "

The local Indian agent, although he brought about the arrest, was designated to and did notify Gustaf of these terms. After the matter of the arrest was settled, Nordenskiold received permission from the Secretary of the Interior, John W. Noble, to travel across Navajo country to the Hopis and beyond. Gustaf Nordenskiold subjected himself to U.S. law; he honored his bail and accepted a formula written in Washington for settlement of his case. He was not charged with any violation relating to the collection of “relics”; in 1891 no so such law existed.

• This is a lightly edited version of the abstract to article Much Trouble Some Expense No Danger by Irving L. Diamond in Proceedings of the Anasazi Symposium 1991, Asa Hutchinson and Jack Smith Mesa Verde Museum Association 1991. http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/anasazi.htm I welcome inquiries on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvdiamond (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

How Do I Upload Images?

Dear Orange Mike,

Thank you for the comments you recently left on my user page. I can see that you are very dedicated to Wikipedia and I apprecaite that. I am just trying to show examples of antique rugs. Nazmiyal has the best collection of images. I would like to upload images from thier site to my article. Could you please give me instructions on how to do so? I have tried to follow the online guide, but so far have only been able to upload to the commons. I am a student of interior design. I used Nazmiyalantiquerugs.com as a reference as they provide many scholalry articles. Since they are a reference, I feel that I must show I used thier site. Could you please not delte that link on my posting? I want others to see the images and i want my references to be clear. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquerugs32 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mike, if you look at this page [6], and this link [7] and this link [8] it's obvious that there's some spamming for this rug store, going on, so we should probably just block this guy.Cathardic (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to AGF here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess I will to, but if I see one more mention of "nazmiyal antique rugs" anywhere around here, then I'm going to defcon 1.Cathardic (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Guard (film) PROD removal

Hi Orangemike. I've removed your PROD from The Guard (film) since I think the sources contain just about enough coverage. I admit that it's a bit borderline though, so I'd be happy to discuss (either here or at AfD) if you still disagree. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't you wait

Can't you wait for jrtechsupport to be rewritten so its worded properly, instead of deleting it? Its a hassle with you keep on deleting it, before I could even get the chance to reword it so its not spam. Or in an advertising way. It may be like that, but at least you could have waited for someone to reword it, so that it will be in view as an encyclopedic article. Instead of deleting an article that needs a chance to have some time, to grow and get bigger, and become encyclopedic. Please reply to this message. Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I understand, but the article was not about my company, or about me or anything. It was a article about a Website. That is a Computer Support Company. And I did not say it was going to be famous, and also. I said after I saw the notice, about the speedy deletion because it sounded like an advertisement, I was going to make it so it didn't sound like an advertisement, and wouldn't be one. And was currently was changing it so it would be encyclopedic. So it wouldn't be up for speedy deletion. I am also, a netural party to the company/website involved. I had no intentions of writing it in an advertising form. Please reply to this message. Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New Article: Michael Manning (priest)

Hey there, I appreciate your feedback. I am working on the page based on your comments- I've added footnotes, internal links and am trying to increase the number of reliable sources. Do you see improvement so far? I will continue to improve it over the new few days. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandaemde (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef semi-protection of Jackson, Tennessee

Hi, Orangemike. I noticed while editing the Jackson, Tennessee article that you had put it under indefinite semi-protection back in October. I can understand your use of semi-protection due based on the vandalism it was experiencing at that time, but indefinite semi-protection seems a bit excessive. Is there more to this than what I've noticed, or would do you plan to lift the protection at some point? --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. Glad I could help jostle your memory. --RL0919 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemike&action=edit

Deletion of Stoked for the Holidays article

I fail to see how the article, as written, is any different than that of North by Northeast, Halifax Pop Explosion, Evolve Festival, Celtic Colours, or Stan Rogers Folk Festival. There was no more tone of spam or advertisement in the article than any other written about a specific event.

Stoked for the Holidays is an annual event, important to many people who live in the Sydney NS area and return for the holidays each year. Unlike other I listed, specifically Celtic Colours which is in the same exact area each year, this event is specifically used to nurture and maintain a music scene that is six hours from the next closest city (Halifax). It may not be important to many who grew up outside the community, but much of our population lives in other regions and many of those people make this event an important part of their visit back each year for the holidays.

I believe the article should be reinstated. Wikipedia should have more articles that are regional and interest people of all walks of life. I read Wikipedia for hours each day at work and more articles like this would really help in showing culture of smaller areas rather than just that of major centers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undertheunderground (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with non-mainstream culture, much of the information comes from the source itself.

CBLocals.com is an amazingly popular blog set up that gets thousands of unique hits each month and was the starting point for expansion (Halifaxlocals, Monctonlocals, etc) in Eastern Canada. In true internet fashion, the site has developed from an informal forum to a more journalistic approach over the last 12 years of existence, but there is no debating it's notability.

By doing a little searching, you can easily find information on the event on the web. Here shows a listing of the past ten years of the event as well as core page entries outlining the development of the event.

If you google the event, you can easily find a facebook group for the event and the gift exchange, which is run by a university radio station. You can also find video of a nationally regognized band (Drowning Shakespeare) playing at the event, as well as an entry on the MakePovertyHistory website.

Again, look at the Celtic Colours entry. Look at the Evolve festival entry. Look at pretty much every other festival or event entry. This entry is no more spam or promotional than those. Despite the event perhaps lacking international relevance, the event showcases the music and culture of a specific area. It is relevant to anyone in the area, of which there is near 100,00 people, as well as the thousands that have moved away over the last ten years to Ontario, Alberta, and even the USA.

I think you are being a little too hard ass on this article. I think there are bigger battles to wage than taking down an article about an important event in a small area's underground culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undertheunderground (talk • contribs) 10:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Undertheunderground (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Uzbekistan 2020

Hi, I undid the redirect for Uzbekistan 2020 since it seems fairly noteable. It has a lot of mention online (just under 10,000 hits on Google), and while that is mostly due to the payment for Monica Bellucci's presence, I'd note that this is the most attention any Uzbek organization has received. It's also the largest PR push Uzbekistan has made in Europe, which is interesting since there there has been an ongoing political debate over how (or if) the EU should deal with senior Uzbek officials, especially considering their horrific human rights record and events like Andijon. I'd mention it in the article myself, but that would be OR - I'm sure the Central Asia analysts at sights like EurasiaNet will write more on it soon, which will help to expand the article. Lola Karimova has founded other organizations before (none of which deserve article, I'd say), but nothing this bold, or with this much attention. P.S. I just saw you nominated the article for deletion - I probably should I written on your talk page first with my rational before undoing your edit (I'm a slow typer). Anyway, hope this clears things up, and you could undo the AFD? Otebig (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation

Please restore this article. It's widely cited by many news stories. It got tagged for deletion within minutes of creation, and you deleted it before I even had a chance to put in the hangon. Bachcell (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It has citations and references at the end of the article, why the speedy delete? Bachcell (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Orangemike, did you intend to salt the talk page but the not article here? Oh, and it's also copied from http://www1.nefafoundation.org/aboutus.html in addition to any other issues. CIreland (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Three Investagators Images

You deleted the two images I up loaded for the Three Investigators page. They were HqThreeInvestagators.jpg and SalvageyardThreeInvestigators.gif because you claimed that it had an improper license. I went through all the hoops or so I thought and got both of them copyrighted. I am trying to understand how Wikipedia works but every time I think I got some thing right I'm wrong and I am really getting frustrated and am thinking about quitting after only a short time editing here. Please respond and help me understand what I am doing wrong. --Ebnielsen (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I got permission from the man that created those images and they were taken down because I checked the wrong box? That part of the uploading process could be made a lot clearer, and why do you have all those options up when one is good all the time and the others only rarely? It seems to me that you need a law degree in copyright law to upload any thing. I thought the whole purpose of Wikipedia was to let any one post on it as long as it's correct and noteworthy. --Ebnielsen (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Silvermine Guild Arts Center / User:SGAC

Hi Orangemike! You recently blocked Silvermine Guild Arts Center (talk · contribs) for violating username policy because it is the name of an organization. I believe SGAC (talk · contribs) is the same editor, who created Silvermine Guild Arts Center. Given the context, I believe the username violates the username policy for the same reason. Singularity42 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Kidfit

I have counseled Kidfit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding conflict of interest and created pschooled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for their use. Fred Talk 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

$20 bill

Hi there, nice profile pic. I find myself unappreciative of your vibrant post to my talk page. I will attempt an explanation. My post to the $20 bill page is done so in a way as to preserve the original text (added by whomever) that "These claims have been demonstrated to be either coincidental or contrived." That statement was cited with a lone reference to Snopes. My edit attempts to clarify what was a blanket (and dismissive) statement. Snopes is merely able to point out that the bill's design was added in 1998, but that in fact would only debunk one of two lines of thinking. I intend my edit to be a mild clarification of this. Jcool5 (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not my intent to present as fact anything that I am not able to document. My intent is to clarify what is a blanket statement (stated above). Please offer recommendations as to how this might be done. Jcool5 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, my intent is to correct what I see as a statement that is not fully supported by the source cited with it. "These claims have been demonstrated to be either coincidental or contrived" is a stretch from what Snopes is able to present. When you are dealing with documenting fact, I don't believe you can be dismissive without the appropriate sources to back it up... Jcool5 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Snopes does not classify the email as a "hoax". It rates the truthfullness of the email with a White bullet (i.e. with no bullet at all; green - true, red - false, etc.), the rating for a veracity that is "unclassifiable". The wording of the current section gives the impression that the "conspiracy" in the email has been proven false, when that is not the case. Jcool5 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest the following edit:

 "An email that emerged after the events of 9/11 alleges that folding the twenty-dollar bill a certain way produces images which
 appear to be 9/11 related (specifically the World Trade Center and the Pentagon burning).[9]"

Jcool5 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Coming

Hey Orange Mike. Pls take a look at Second coming. There's a user who is insisting on using colon (:) notation to move most paragraphs to the right in a completely non-standard manner. I've taken them out and he reverts. He e-mailed me that he thinks the indents make it easier to read with so many templates on the left. I don't want an edit war, and need your advice, please. Thanks! Afaprof01 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I emailed you AFTER you emailed me, and I didn't say "with so many templates on the left", I said "sections were indistinguishable due to so many quotes and sidebars" -- RogerZoel 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC) (updated by Roger Zoel 20 Nov 09 - omitted part of sentence in error).

Orange Mike, thanks for the prompt action. I'm amazed at the number of requests that have appeared on your Talk page in the last 22 hours! Afaprof01 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, Mary. I reverted half the edits on that page...sheesh! -- RogerZoel 03:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing block notification

Hi, I just wanted to point out that you didn't notify MMPROMO (talk · contribs) of your block. I know that you always take care of such notifications, so this must've just been an oversight. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hullo!

Hey there. If you have time, would you mind reviewing this? Cheers, m.o.p 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

PROD on Irdeto Access B.V.

Hi Orangemike, I noticed you proposed the above article for deletion. A google scholar and books search show real notability for the Irdeto standard. The article the way it is now is a bit of a mess, but the content there could be used for a good article on the Irdeto technology. I know, I know, {{sofixit}}, and I'll make a start, but I didn't want to remove the PROD before getting started, and I don't have the time now, so I'd like to ask you to remove the PROD for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever --

wiki, wikify, wikilinks, redlinks, purplelinks, dufuslinks -- whatever -- I say tomaaaaaato, you say tomAAAAAto, big deal. -- Roger Zoel 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your religious babble harassment quotations to yourself for which is not welcomed with me. If you please, I don't care to strike up any quaint conversations with you - Thanks -- Roger Zoel 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

confused

you deleted my article and advised i used a subpage to prepare my article but i cant figure out how to open one. i tried reading through all the links but everytime i click on subpage in my contributions tab nothing happens. what am i doing wrong (C11rjs (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

thanks for the aditional help, the chances are it will become something, the ratings are increasing daily, yes maybe that quote was a bit of stupid quote but the producers and artists on that station arnt actually that bad. just remember when they are big that you were the one who deleted them from here before i had a chance to actually create a fully reasonable and justified article. thanks for your help anyway (C11rjs (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

bagbagostomycovers

I have counseled bagbagostomycovers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding conflict of interest and create a new account for them, stevecarmichael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am somewhat skeptical regarding this one and will pay extra attention. Fred Talk 01:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bagbagostomycovers (talk · contribs)

Hi, I've unblocked this account since its user has acknowledged his mistake and made a promise to follow policy. I'll keep track of his new account & IP to make sure there's no more promotional activity. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bunkface page

I've written a test page of Bunkface at User:Kristalyamaki/Bunkface. How's it? Can it be used? Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Actually, no, the Malaysian music scene is quite distorted (even chart topping singers aren't really famous) and there is no national music chart. In Malaysia, to achieve Platinum Album status, one singer or band only has to sell 20,000 albums compared to 1,000,000 in the United States (refer: List of music recording sales certifications, therefore, a few awards and being listed on radio station charts would be the best to state the band's notability in the country. In fact, if you talk about WP:MUSIC, I doubt many from [9] would have passed it either. Kristalyamaki (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So, do I get the green light to restart the page? Kristalyamaki (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ellen Shane

Please explain where there is any promotional material on the page Dean Hale that I created?

Ellen Shane (talk) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

In his spare time, Hale is an avid family man ... Since making Tampa his permanent home, Hale has become very involved with his community and charitable organizations. ... He just filed and is already expected to beat the incumbent. ... He is a rising star on the political scene and there will be a lot more articles about him in the future. ... He is very well known in Tampa and people should have a chance to know a little about this guy. These do not read like the work of somebody trying to create an encyclopedic article, but rather like the words of somebody trying to get publicity for a candidate for a local office. Please read our guidelines for biographical articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those comments were no where on the page !!! You put up for speedy deletion stating something about notability. I put those comments in the talk or discussion page as you requested stating why this guy, a well known Tampa citizen is notable. You should quit trying to read minds and just read the article and the news articles about this guy.

An encyclopedia just gives factual information bout a person. Which my page did.

No offense, but you should take your mind reading act to Vegas.

Ellen Shane (talk) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

On the contrary, the first two sentences were taken directly from the article you created. The other three were quoted from things you said in discussion, and were quoted to display your stated motivation in creating this article. You apparently are still not reading the information I've tried to provide about who is or is not notable enough to get an article in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what dictionary you are using to define promoting or promotional, but the first two sentences you quote are neither.

Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines state: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

Considering the gentlemen just filed, I believe the common person (which Wikipedia caters to) would believe the two articles on Mr. Hale would be significant coverage and allow for future edits on Mr. Hale as time went by.

It seems that Wikipedia's standards do not get applied evenly or fairly across the board. Your personal history of deletion and that of other "administrators" would indicate that you get some type of sick joy in deleting articles that do not meet your personal standard. When clearly Wikipedia is not just about you. Please do not forget that fact.

You make your case by citing Wikipedia guidelines or standards, but the very guidelnes or standards that you quote do not show cause for article deletion.

Yes, I am an attorney, and if there were actual rules or guidelines that you must follow, you would legally not have a case to stand on.

However, it appears that Wikipedia does not care about uniformly policing their own guidelines or standards.

Again, your job is to read articles from a factual standpoint and not try to interpret (like a God) what the writers intent was or is.

Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Shane (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • So in essence, you're trying to say 'This guy is notable because I've created two articles on him'? 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No, that's not fair to her. She is saying that the articles in the local paper saying he had filed for a local office (whose incumbent would not meet our notability standards for politicians) make him notable. Let's be fair here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, this user brought up this article on my talk page also. TNXMan 18:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, no offense, but do you guys even read the articles before you delete? If you had bothered to read the actual article and not just skimmed before deletion, you would have seen that two reporters, Christian Wade and Jane Zink from Tampa Bays two major newspapers (Tampa Tribune and St. Pete Times) took the time to write articles about this guy. Not me. But I guess if two major newpapers find Mr. Hale notable, they are just plain crazy. If Wikipedia admnins do not see the notability, than obviously the two paid reporters and teh two major newspapers must be wrong.

Come on guys, be sensible before you try to defend your unnecessary deltions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Shane (talk • contribs) 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, sign your name (~~~~). Second, you don't need to create a new topic every time you post on his page. HalfShadow 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I did read the articles. In total, they consisted of five brief paragraphs about Hale, written by the local City Hall beat reporters, who clearly did not find him notable as we understand the term (even the local crank perennial candidate may get a brief mention like this in the local paper when he files for office). These fail laughably to meet our standards of substantial coverage. Candidates are seldom notable simply by being candidates; it should be noted that even the incumbent against whom Hale is running is not notable enough to have an article here. I neither know nor care about either candidate; I care about the standards I was designated to uphold. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, so the Wikipedia standard is "Does Orange Mike care?" If he does not care about Tampa Politics than obviously nobody else would. What kind of God complex are you on?

Laughable. You try to hold your self off as some type of elitist. Very funny.

Ellen Shane (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

? I was attempting to clarify that I am neutral in this matter, to pre-empt any bogus allegations of bias against either candidate. How does that translate to "elitist"? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you should see me; I'm both superior to you and I have a cooler name than both of you. I'm also humble. HalfShadow 18:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have come to expect nothing better.

Be consistent guys. You somehow thought the previous incumbent notable enough to be on Wikipedia (Shawn Harrisson), but not the current incumbent. Standards. What standards? Nothing but random enforcement.

Your inconsistancy is consistent.

Ellen Shane (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd mention what else is consistent here, but I don't want to get in trouble. HalfShadow 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting OrangeMike to care more about local politics would definitely be a good thing. However, local politicians (and especially candidates for local political office) are not usually considered notable and are generally (and fairly consistently) excluded from Wikipedia, even though they often receive some local news coverage. I have a joke about incontinence, but I think it might be inappropriate, even in a discussion about Florida politicians. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, the article that Ms. Shane is referring to is Shawn Harrison (politician). GlassCobra 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

Hello! I had received a comment in my first review that my article looks like an advertisement. I have attempted to rewrite the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fiberlink/sandbox) with an encyclopedic tone. Can you please review my article? If there are any sections which appear to be still like an advertising effort, please point out that sections and give appropriate examples. I would like to identify my mistake and rectify it. I am here to stay and would like to contribute more to wiki writing.

Thank you.. Fiberlink (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi ... can you please unprotect Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation so I can apply "#REDIRECT The Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation" to it? I've created the first article, with multipe refs reflecting its notability. The second format of it is currently in protected status because you deleted it (as NN, though I think a google search review of mentions of it addresses that concern). Especially now, given its recent mentions in the news w/the Fort Hood shootings, this is an important org for us to have on WP IMHO. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Passed away

[10] Kittybrewster ☎ 11:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

George Bradt

Orangemike, This requests that you take off the flags you put on the "George Bradt" article. If I'm reading the various comments right, the general consensus seems to be that the article should not be deleted, and has already been improved to the point of acceptability. Gbradt (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Outlaw Preachers

Mike, I think you may have been a bit hasty in deleting the "Outlaw Preachers" article. Your reason in the deletion log was A7, but I was able to find the Google cache of the article and it looks pretty significant to me. "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance." Although I think the group is important for other reasons, I want to point out that Jay Bakker (son of Jim and Tammy Faye) is one of the founding members of the group. I appreciate your deletionist zeal, I agree that there are many pointless articles here, but I don't think this is one of them. Thanks, Josh Paddingtonjbear (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I too have looked at the Google cached version of this article. I cannot see any plausible claim of significance. How significant Jay Bakker may be is open to debate, but even if he is extremely significant I don't see that his significance is inherited. Certainly who his parents are is irrelevant. Also none of the "references" in the articles is, as far as I can see, to an independent source. In short, I think Orangemike was quite right. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This article (aside from being a shameless violation of our WP:NPOV rules) was not sourced to anything but blogs and the like. There was no credible assertion of notability. If the original author asks, I could userfy it to a sandbox for them to find some reliable sources; but I feel that an A7 (or a G11, for that matter) was fully justified. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bakker and his current church were significant enough that Sundance Channel made a 6 part documentary about him. How high of a standard of significance are you really trying to set? On the topic of how notable the topic is, I'd invite you to reread the section on "non-criteria". This article has also made a credible claim to significance, again please reread A7 for your comments about the quality of the sources, that criteria does not apply even if the sources are not reliable. For the claim of G11 and NPOV, I really think you're just being unfair at this point. Take a look at the google cache, this is not an advertisement. If there is some other reason that you think this article should not exist please let me know so that I can address it, but so far I think I've made a good case in favor of keeping it. Thanks, Josh Paddingtonjbear (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. You are making a case for Bakker as notable; that's irrelevant to this discussion, as notability is not inherited. 2. The wording for A7 specifically say, "no credible assertion". 3. The G11/NPOV is triggered by language like, As to the illiteracy claim by Silva, it is completely unfounded." Does that sound like a neutral POV, or a defense by an advocate? 4. Would you like me to userfy this for you to work on some? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On your points. 1. Notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion, also where is it stated that it is not inherited. If this is a valid reason for deletion, I don't think it should apply to groups. Aren't groups made significant partly by who their members are? 2. The article makes several credible assertions, but you're right that they aren't well supported, nevertheless that doesn't qualify for A7. To avoid speedy deletion the claims only need to be plausible, which I think they are. 3. The passage you quote is a good example of how this is more than an advertisement, so G11 does not apply. Who would include a quote from their critics in an advertisement? As for NPOV, you are right, but that is not a criteria for speedy deletion. 4. I didn't start this article, but I'd like to improve it, so my preference would be that you undelete it and allow this website to function collaboratively. It seems that you think this article can never be shown to be significant. What improvements would it take to establish that? I don't want to put hours of work into it if you're going to simply delete it. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, a google search for "Outlaw Preachers" will come up with several examples of independent sources that talk about the group. Admittedly they are mostly critics like Ken Silva, but the existence of critics to a group would suggest that it is significant and even notable. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I have waited patiently for several days. Please respond to my points or reinstate the page. I do not intend to appeal your deletion decision. Judging by this situation and the other comments on this page, I believe you are abusing the speedy deletion process and if this page is not reinstated I intend to report your behavior and request that your administrator privileges be removed. Good day, sir. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate venue is WP:DRV. You can make your case there, preferably on the merits of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Acroterion, I appreciate your suggestion, but my point is that this is an abuse of the speedy deletion process. As I said I do not intend to pursue a deletion review. Actually as it stands I think this article is in the category between speedy deletion and standard deletion. Mike makes several valid points but only appeals to the standard rules for deletion. He's applying the standard for regular deletion to his privileges of speedy deletion, this appears to be a trend in how he uses his administrator privileges and it is inappropriate. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you won't pursue DRV, the place that's designed for discussion of debatable deletions, you will have a difficult time with another avenue. The article in question appeared to be a pointed advocacy piece; if you want other opinions, I repeat, DRV is the place to go. Orangemike has offered to place it in your user space to work on, an entirely reasonable suggestion. Your interest in a scalp is a little over the top in view of this offer and your unwillingness to pursue deletion review. Acroterion _(talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume your term "scalp" is some wikipedia jargon that I'm unfamiliar with, but I think I take your meaning. I'll back off as soon as Orangemike is able to answer my points about why this qualifies for speedy deletion, he is an adult perhaps you should let him speak for himself. As I said, I don't think the article would pass deletion review, but that does not mean that it qualifies for speedy deletion. The burden of proof for deletion should be on Orangemike unless he can establish why this qualifies for speedy deletion, in DRV the burden of proof is reversed. I find it hard to accept that administrator privileges give someone the right to do that, hence I consider this an abuse of the speedy deletion privilege. I have used this site for a long time and made many minor edits anonymously over the years (spelling and grammar corrections, reversing vandalism, etc.) but this is the first time I've felt compelled to create an account, so perhaps I'm simply ignorant of the appropriate course of action but as I understand it the proper thing to do in response to speedy deletion is to first attempt to resolve the issue with the administrator who deleted it. I have assumed he acted in good faith, despite offering a moving target, and now that he seems unable to support his position I am forced to assume that either this deletion was a hasty mistake or that he was acting in bad faith. So yes, I would like this page to be reinstated, be given a good reason why it qualifies for speedy deletion, or the "scalp" that you suggest. As far as userfying this page, frankly I don't see the point. As I understand it, Orangemike is the administrator of this page now and so I would have to request his permission to post it, and he seems to be intransigent. I am quite frustrated with this experience, I wonder why wikipedia suggests that editors "be bold" and then administrators use their privileges so indiscriminately. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant the term in the colloquial American sense that you're asking for Mike's head to roll after you've insisted that he follow procedure as you see it, yet you haven't been willing to follow normal review procedure and you've declined userfication of the article. In other words, you're more interested in exacting punishment than in allowing the issue to be aired in the usual forum or pursuing improvement of the article . This is Orangemike's talk page, and anyone may participate: he isn't the "administrator of this page," and anyone may comment where they see an issue that can be dealt with constructively. You are required to assume good faith of his actions, as he has done for you in offering to place the article in your user space so you can carry out your stated wish of improving the article so that it will be suitable for article space. That is the point of the offer. Acroterion _(talk) 13:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "the administrator of this page now"; that would be a form of ownership. I'm just this guy with a mop and bucket. I've offered to userfy the article so you can work on it; I've provided you a link to the Deletion Review process; I've explained my reasoning. Do you want to create a useful form of this article on a phenomenon you feel is notable, or do you want to see me punished for what you see as overzealous cleanup? Set your priorities. Meanwhile, I'll keep mopping up the graffiti and wiping up the waste products. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I owe you an apology. I'm sorry, I got a little caught up in this, but I've given it some thought and I certainly don't want anyone to be punished. I misunderstood how admins are supposed to interact with articles, I was under the impression that once an admin has taken action on a page that other admins are supposed to stay away. I won't fight this anymore, but I may recreate the page from scratch when I have time. I would still request that you review the speedy deletion page, especially the "non-criteria", and compare it to the standard deletion process. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

GBradt page

Orangemike, This requests that you take off the flag you put on the page about me. If I'm reading the various comments right, the general consensus seems to be that I'm a valuable enough contributor to have around. Gbradt (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No-one questioned that you have value here: the concern is that you're using your userpage and some of your edits to push the specific term, the "brand" you have developed; and that your userpage was a bit too much, "come look at and buy my books". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Points taken and reflected. Since you flagged the pages, Mandsford has completely re-written the Onboarding article to reflect yours and others' comments, and I've re-written my user page. (Though I did keep the books on my user page. While I don't want to come across as "too much", I am proud of those books and am completely unapologetic about including them on my user page.) Let me know what else you think needs to be done before you remove the flags. (I'm doing my best to work within the system. Learning as I'm going here.) Gbradt (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What else needs to happen for you to remove the flags you put on the Onboarding, George Bradt, and GBradt pages? I'll check here or Gbradt talk or you can send me an email at gbradt@primegenesis.com Gbradt (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi ... just wanted to make sure you didn't overlook my comment on NEFA above. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- I haven't heard back from you on this. Should I be asking someone else to unprotect it? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tx for unprotecting it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me out? I'm trying to figure out the one or two people who tried to create it before, so I can let them know it is up so they can also work on it ... but can't see the history now. Can you let me know who they are, or tell me how to find out? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't heard back on the above. Instead of responding, I see you just deleted two citations from the article that reference NEFA, asserting that they don't. And then split a sentence into two sentences, and indicated that the first part didn't have a reference and tagged it. Would appreciate your getting back to me on the above. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Smosh

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Smosh. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Onboarding

Orangemike, This requests that you take off the flags you put on the Onboarding article. If I'm reading the various comments right, the general consensus seems to be that the article should not be deleted, but should be improved and that those improvements can be handled through the normal editing process. Gbradt (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the inappropriate external links on the Onboarding talk page. Accepting that that was wrong, and in no way trying to be defensive, my thinking was that linking people to an executive summary of the Onboarding book would help the various people that were trying to edit the article understand some of the source material without their having to buy the book. I missed the point that this should not be done in talk pages. Since Mandsford has re-written the article and referenced appropriately, the issue is now moot. But I do accept that I should not have included that external link and won't do so again in articles or article talk pages.Gbradt (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

William Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey

I have no idea on how else to contact you, so I am hoping this will work. Please leave the page on me (The Earl of Jersey) alone now. My knowledge of my life is my source. It hadn't been released in a public forum so I could not "verify" it (although it will now be shortly so). I appreciate you cannot verify I am who I say I am, but at the same time perhaps you could understand that not EVERYTHING is verifiable precisely BECAUSE I have no way of verifying who I am! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.124.68 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Adph

Just in case you haven't seen this, this user is requesting an unblock. Triplestop x3 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Talk:NewFoundSpecFic

Thanks for your somewhat mystifying comment. How else could I refer to a convention named SciFi on the Rock IV? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DynamicDLC

Just curious, but why did you block her? She was attempting to get her username changed and it looks as though her article had the potential for notability. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, from what I read (though I don't tend to stray into business-related articles, so I can't say for sure), I thought the article had established some form of notability. With some help to avoid it being an advert, do you think it would be possible to get it into the encyclopaedia proper? If not, I won't push it, I'm merely curious. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I could proofread it, but that'd be all I could do. I don't have any experience with articles on companies, so I wouldn't have a clue what I was doing. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Did the warning happen automatically because I've contributed to the article, or did you place it manually? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that in a short while. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there's really no point wikifying it if no-one has any new content for it to save it from deletion. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Anne King Gregorie

Hello Orangemike, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Anne King Gregorie has been removed. It was removed by John Z with the following edit summary 'rm prod; prof with privately printed biography, journal article and encylopedia entry on her, enough for [[WP:BIO]]'. Please consider discussing your concerns with John Z before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC opinion

Hello there, you may well not want to get involved in this, but as a total outsider and a wikipedian whose opinions I respect, I'd quite like your opinion of this. I don't think I'd even heard of RfC a week ago (perhaps I'm just lucky) but the reaction of some of the commenters suggests that it isn't considered as straightforward a request for comments on dubious behaviour as the name makes it seem. Some editors seem to think I'm overreacting by requesting comments at all (and at least one attributes it to malice). If you have no desire to get involved, a word here or on my talkpage would be as valuable to me as an opinion given there. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul, is this really appropriate? CarolineWH (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And allow me to emphasize that I am openly requesting the opinion of a single fellow editor with regard to my own conduct, which is entirely appropriate.--Paularblaster (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This has all the appearances of shopping for votes, and a simple denial is not sufficient. CarolineWH (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

CarolineWh, if you want to wikilawyer at me, please do so on my own talkpage (which you are welcome to recreate for the purpose). OrangeMike, in light of the previous, I would, personally, prefer it if you were to give your opinion here or on my talkpage (should it still be there), rather than in the RfC itself.--Paularblaster (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I just can't be bothered with it any more.--Paularblaster (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I do hope Paul comes back long enough to learn that CarolineWH has been indef-blocked. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of flags on Onboarding, George Bradt, and Gbradt user pages

Orangemike, what can I do to persuade you to remove the remaining flags you put on the Onboarding, George Bradt and my user pages? Recall you had flagged them for possible deletion. During the ensuing discussions, several people weighed in with changes to improve the pages. At the end of the discussions, administrators closed the deletion discussions with the decision to keep the pages. Your flags remain, but are out of date. Seems like it's appropriate for you to re-look at the pages and either provide new comments (always room for further improvement) or remove your flags. Happy to discuss here or on my talk page. Gbradt (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Adamantius

Hi, you just salted Adamantius (theological journal) and Adamantius (journal) was salted a while ago. Therefore, you may be interested in Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina". Alastair is tenacious... --Crusio (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Recreated again... I have lost count how many times Alastair has recreated this article today, but at least 3 times... --Crusio (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bacon Number

You were in Win Ben Stein's Money with Ben Stein, who was in Planes Trains and Automobiles with Kevin Bacon.

Doesn't that mean your Bacon Number is 2? — Bdb484 (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jamil Ghanim

I don't know if you're keeping an eye on the copyvio situation at Jamil Ghanim, but the offending editor is continuing to revert with minimal changes to the text, which continues to bear a very strong resemblance to the source text. I've left a message about edit warring on his talk page, but I've found that such admonitions have not been well received.

I'm sure you don't want to get dragged into this any more than I want to get dragged into a 3rr situation, but I'm hoping that a gentle reminder from an admin -- yourself or another neutral party -- might be a little more effective. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP, OF THE PAGE!!!

Hello Mike. This is User:Ovnion. I tried to add a term "Cellint" and you deleted it. Is this the right place to leave you messages? can I leave you a message in my discussion page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovnion (talk • contribs) — Ovnion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:26, 2 December 2009

College of Journalism and Mass Communications (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

You PRODded this as NN and in due course I deleted it. An IP has now appeared asking for it, so I have undeleted it and given him TL;DR advice here about notability and independent sources. I told him I would notify you and you might well take it to AfD, but perhaps we should give him a bit of time to see if he can make anything of it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moelis & Company

Hi Mike. I noticed you recently deleted Moelis & Company and I feel like we have had this conversation before. Apologies if I missed something i have been crazy busy - but it looked like this was a speedy delete and I would have contested that had i caught it in time. I just looked at the cached version of this article [11] and was having a difficult time understanding how this is G11. The content that I am looking at while limited in value and not well referenced is not blatant advertising. "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Having spent some work on getting List of investment banks in shape, I feel like both Moelis & Co. and Ken Moelis are both going to pass any notability test easily. Instead of recreating the page, I would appreciate it if you would restore the page. If you then want to propose an AfD, we can go down that route. Better yet, I can do a little work to get it going in the right direction so you don't need to spend time going in that direction. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Onboarding Page Update

Mike - Got any guidance on how to move forward on this? People have addressed the issues you raised on the Onboarding page, but you've gone quiet on us. If you've got other comments, let us know. If you're OK with the changes, how about either removing the flags or asking someone else to do so. Not sure why you or anyone else would want the page to sit there in limbo. Gbradt (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

George Bradt Page Update

Mike - Same points as above for the George Bradt page. Again, it seems like your comments were addressed. Let us know what to do next. Gbradt (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reputation help

Hi Mike, I just wanted to let you know that you seem like a cool guy. I have had alot of bad expieriences on Wikipedia, and no one really likes me. Do you think I can ever ebuild my rep. I trust youe opinion because you are an expierinced admin. Just look ay my user history, and tell me whether I can ever be acceptted as a user here. I haven't found anyone who believes in me. I don't even believe in me. But I hope that somehow, someway I will gain acceptance here... please Mike. I need your help! Uncle Tech (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving this guy a go. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding the term Cellint

Hi Mike, Thanks so much for your input. It was very helpful. I work for Cellint, and I saw a page of competitor (Airsage) in Wikipedia, and tried to do the same, but much more modest. Not for Advertisement, only facts. Apparently I didn't do it well. Please let me know if the following text will be fine (I'm fine in changing it in any way you suggest):

Company

Cellint is a provider of traffic information technology and services. By extracting anonymous signaling data from cellular network, Cellint's platform, called TrafficSense, is correlating each mobile phone to the road it is traveling on, and measuring its speed every few hundred meters in real time. Cellint's HQ is based in Israel, and its systems are deployed in the US, Europe and Asia Pacific.

Technology

Cellint's technology is using pattern matching analysis to locate the mobile phones, based on ground truth reference database, rather then using triangulation, as most mobile location technologies. The database is generated by driving the roads and recording the signaling sequences. At independent evaluations of GDOT the data quality of the TrafficSense was matched successfully against road sensors I all speed ranges. This was the 1st time ever, world wide, that an FCD technology was successful in emulating road sensors' information in such a test.

Many thanks Ovnion --Ovnion (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Propro removal PLEASE LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP, OF THE PAGE!!!

Orangemike, You recently removed the page Propro and we would like to discuss the reasons of the removal with you. The page was still under construction and clearly marked as such (using the newpage tag). Moreover, when we were selected for speedy deletion by a bot, we had put the hangon tag, and explained in the user page why it should not be removed.

In our opinion there was enough background material on the page to identify the subject. Just because you don't understand something does not mean that you should delete it. Clearly, without reading background material you cannot expect the layman to understand the content of a scientific page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdiem (talk • contribs) — Drdiem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Ant

In case you are not watching, please see User talk:Alastair Haines#Gruppo. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack against you

Recommend you look into this bit of nastiness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been deleted now, but you might want to look into it anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Even better; this was the second attack Wikipedia article about me which has been created since I became an active editor. (The first one said I emulated oranges by wearing orange and hanging from fruit trees.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's just... was this one as ridiculous? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"killed my family, sodomized my children, and stolen my wealth" is probably the highlight, along with "one of the most awsomely chill guys ever". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot attest to your "awesome chillness"; however, I am reliably informed that you are more orangey than most other folks. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You sodomise children? Remind me never to invite you to any of my children's christenings. :P Honestly, I preferred the first one. He showed imagination (however small). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, except for the fruit trees bit, he just posted a slightly mutilated version of the text on my userpage. The second, in a mordant and vile sort of way, was more imaginative. Comparing libels: I'm reminded of the poison-tasting scene in the Sept. 1983 episode of the original What's New with Phil & Dixie!

FIRST PLAYER CHARACTER: By Jove -- I believe our "host" has put hemlock into our drinks.

SECOND P.C.: Mmmmm -- I prefer deadly nightshade -- more minty!

THIRD P.C.:I favor the crisp feel of cyanide, m'self. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Pity. I have a list of imaginative vandals I'm working on, but I try to keep the sweary ones off of it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Summer3212

This user has already been cautioned about COI editing. While he's new, and a bit spammy, avoiding redundant caution templates helps Wikipedia be less bitey. Thanks! --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, just appended an extra bit!) ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate tempate usage

You might look here. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Armando Gutierrez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Armando Gutierrez. 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. Tikiwont (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you for deleting my user page. I dont think admins are given enough appreciation for what they do. Thanks again. Ikip (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We're just the folks with the mop-and-bucket. Glad to help. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

you mad?

So the other administrators have reached a consensus. I take it now you will stop the vandalism of my page? Or continue to do so, no matter, the 10-14 age demographic on Wikipedia is lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaferk (talk • contribs) 03:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is against me; I may continue to believe that I acted appropriately, but I'm not going to fight the consensus if that's the way it falls. I reject, however, the theory that this was vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bhuna

There is no such word as deletionist, Mike. I find it really, genuinely upsetting that someone with whom I share so many political and ideological viewpoints is so ruthless in deleting valid articles. You might want to remove the anarcho-syndicalist flag from your page and replace it with a picture of Uncle Joe. Also, don't feel bad about wearing orange on St Pat's day, instead why don't you wear orange and spend the day in Kilburn. By the end of the day you will be unable to delete any more articles for a while. veghead (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hello Mike. Can you please tell me how can I suggest speedy deletion of a term which is pure advertisement (it is "Wireless Signal Extraction" which is a name of a specific technology of a specific company, and especially shouldn't appear at the FCD section). Thanks --Ovnion (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hey Mike, Welcome to Wikipedia! You might like to reconsider putting patronising templates on long standing (although maybe low activity) users talk pages without wondering if you aren't someone who needs a bit of a re-education regarding the principles behind Wikipedia. I don't appreciate your comments, and as a user of Wikipedia, my value judgments are of equal relevance to yours. Please don't continue to refer to yourself as an anarchist until you understand:

• what it means.
• why you are actually not one.
• why you wouldn't like it.

Love, Me - veghead (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisting notice

Per Spartaz's request, I am notifying you that this discussion that you participated in has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy (2nd nomination) in the hopes to gain a more fair consensus due to the participation of three sock puppet accounts in the earlier discussion. The three sock accounts that checkuser confirmed are the same person voted to delete or redirect and made multiple edits to the discussion which closed as "redirect" and therefore may have created a false impression of consensus by vote-stacking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

dashuaslabs

I have counseled dashuaslabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with respect to conflict of interest and created the account Hand Selected (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for him to use to edit with. Fred Talk 01:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin State Legislature

I took your suggestion and I have been starting articles about members of the Wisconsin State Legislature. It has not been the incumbents-I am not into political science-but it has been those who were in office but left the legislature. There were a few that were convicted of convicted of corruption. I suggested to one of the editors about getting an article started about the Wisconsin recall law-Wisconsin Constitution Article XIII, section 12. I also work on articles about people connected with Wisconsin Territory mainly the territory secretary and started a few articles about a few Roman Catholic diocesan bishops along the way-hope you are doing well-Thanks-RFD (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

User talk:Adph unblock on hold. Sole Soul (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the block on account AMglobal (talk · contribs). Hope you are doing well, Cirt (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Krempin

Please see my note here. I've not been able to find any reliable sources backing up any claims in the article, and not for lack of effort. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Civility and good faith?

Thanks for your sage advice on my conduct, which I believe to be far more offensive and patronising than my original comments to you. I disagree with you, and wish to highlight that my original beef was as a result of you asking for the deletion of an article I consider to be totally legitimate. You may not know about bhuna in the US, but it's a very well known dish in the UK (from where I originate). Being a "deletionist" is not something to be proud of. veghead (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(raises hand) I live in England. I have never heard of bhuna. Any explanation as to where exactly in the UK it's known? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just about every Indian restaurant I've ever visited. I'm from London if that makes a difference. In fact, if you watch the latest series of Gavin and Stacey (S02E2) you notice it mentioned. Also if you check the Wikipedia Bhuna article now, you'll see it mentioned on the Curry page. veghead (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the farmer's market is this Sunday. I'll keep an eye out for it at the curry stall. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equal treatment to all users???

Yesterday you have deleted my page about Ibertest Internacional, because its "marketing" page. But other pages like "Instron", a company that are in the same market like Ibertest continues in Wikipedia...¿whats de reason? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibertestint (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason is the way the page was written. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view, showing the good and the bad of a company. I've looked at Instron. While nothing more than a stub, it's proved notability and it is not written like an advert. Does that help to answer your question? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps putting a cleanup template on the page would be less anti-social than just deleting it. veghead (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the poster's username, this was pretty spammy, including the phrases "created european leader engineering company" and "Ibertest internacional borns at the beginning of the xxi century" (i.e., new company). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Close AFD

CAn you close the afd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. IMOP looks to be a wp:snow close..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not a true WP:SNOW situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Natural Vibrations

I have declined speedy deletion of this article. The article clearly states that the band has released 6 albums and won several significant awards, and is therefore not a suitable case for speedy deletion. Several examples of significant coverage also exist, some of which I have listed on the article's talk page.--Michig (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ophélie Bretnacher

Hello, Is it normal, that Hell in a Bucket notifie that "that time is not now" at 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) than the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article ? And i would like to change the titttle in the case of Ophélie Bretnacher... best regards Raymondnivet (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondnivet (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion of Wells Home Furnishings

Wondering why it was deleted. They are one of the top furniture retailers in WV and certainly deserve to be included as a Furniture retailer in the United States category —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmatthewwells (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See the extensive information already provided to you on your talk page as to our standards for notability of companies (and our strictures on conflict of interest). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there needs to be a new commercial project: WikiYellowPages.com — just so we can refer such editors onward! Charge for listings, and let the proceeds support the Foundation. That way, readers all over the world can learn about the top furniture retailers in WV. And, oh, the joy of editing/adminning the competing entries.... um, never mind. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for Wikia! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Guess what? They already have one ... Wikia's Yellowikis. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user above. ... [adding:] and created {{uw-bizlist}}. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, Actually I created page for my Dad kind of as a Christmas present and to just put some information up for the public. Didn't realize it was such a big deal; I wasn't out to step on anyones toes or post information that any user would find destructive. I thought the internet was created to provide people with an easier way to find information and make decisions. Thanks for the suggestion of posting it on the yellowikis site but I'm kind of disappointed about all this--Johnmatthewwells 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC).Johnmatthewwells (User_talk:Johnmatthewwells —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

On related topic: user changed the offending line; is MfD still necessary? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. Removed my phone number, enabled my email address in my preferences. There's one other issue I would appreciate some help on. I've been working to get the wiki StarChase (my place of work) updated and recently Mike put some other "problem boxes" at the top of the page. I sure would hate for someone to put that page up for deletion. If you guys have any suggestions on how to get the StarChase page up to Mike's starndards, I would be greatful--Johnmatthewwells 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching of Permethius

Hi MoP, I was doing a bit of tidying up of Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching, and the entry for Permethius says that you are coaching them.

I have contacted BarkingFish, but had no reply yet (but their last edit was in October). If you are admin coaching them, could you please remove their entry on the Requests page, and add an entry on the Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status page? If you are not coaching them, could you remove the "admin comment" on their entry?

On the message at their talk page, I basically asked them if they could do the same - and if they are no longer interested in receiving coaching, if they could remove their name from the list.

It would be nice to get this sorted out - it's only a little thing, but it'd be good to get the list properly tidied up.

I have also suggested here that if someone has not updated their "last visited this page" date in 6 months (or if they have been inactive for 4 months) that their name should be removed from the list (at the moment, if they haven't visited in 6 weeks, their name is move from the current requests to the older requests.

At the moment, their are about 100 "older' requests - removing those more than 6 months old would leave about 20!

If you have any comment on this suggestion, please feel free to leave a message on the thread!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Cox Page Vandalism Returns

On Dec 7 and Dec 8 they deleted the Mike Cox page information and articles and links whole cloth, destroying what you had fixed as of Nov 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjoeyjimmybobby (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sheldon Pinnell

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sheldon Pinnell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheldon Pinnell. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Subliminal Stimuli

Hi Mike,

First and foremost, I apologize for violating any of Wikipedia's user policies, as it was not my intent. Please allow me to briefly address these violations as you've bought them to my attention below.

"Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Subliminal stimuli. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

While it may seem promotional in nature - the film "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" - and its subsequent release, culminates a 5 year long study and production on the subject with over 30 renowned authorities in their respective fields from across the country. For a complete list of interviewees please see: http://www.programmingthenation.com/interviews.shtml. Many of these experts, (and their work), is cited on the Wikipedia article on Subliminal Stimuli. This documentary is the first ever produced on the topic and is non-biased and subjective in its analysis. Being that subliminal stimuli itself can only be experienced visually and audibly, the film is notable and deserves mention, to further educate those interested in the subject who might only have been able to read about it in the past.

One might argue that a multitude of items added to this, (and other topics), on Wikipedia is "promotional" - simply by the verifiable nature that it exists and his been included. I'm wondering why other "verifiable" info should be excluded when it only serves the reader to be aware of its existence?

I'm also wondering if it Wikipedia might consider editing (rather than deleting), my addition of to this article?

"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Subliminal stimuli. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

I don't believe I actually added "commentary" or "personal analysis" to this Wiki article. I simply mentioned the existence of this documentary, the topics it covers, and cited the film website as a reference - all of which I have attempted to verify as best as possible.

Thanks for your consideration to my request and for all the amazing work you and the other editors do to make Wikipedia the best possible resource on the Internet.

Kind regards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by IgniteTheMind (talk • contribs) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your description of the film, both in the original edit and here, is promotional advocacy, not neutral and encyclopedic. We do not seek your opinion of the film; if it has not been cited by impartial, reliable sources as noteworthy and relevant to the article, it does not belong. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mike,

Please explain what is "promotional advocacy" about my original addition to the article on "Subliminal stimuli" below:

"In 2009, a feature documentary entitled "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" directed by Jeff Warrick, was released. The film examines the alleged history of subliminal messaging in American mass-media - categorically exploring issues such as the subconscious mind, the James Vicary experiment, subliminal research, backward masking in rock music, and asserted claims of subliminals in film, advertising, politics, U.S. Psychological Operations and Project HAARP in Alaska."

How is this considered an "opinion" of the film?

Regarding citation by "impartial" and "reliable sources" as "noteworthy" and "relevant" to the article - what about the following:

1. Taylor, Dr. Eldon, (Mind Programming: From Persuasion and Brainwashing to Self-Help and Practical Metaphysics) Published by Hay House - 2009 Page 22: "Are others intentionally manipulating us for gain? In the documentary Programming the Nation, producer Jeff Warrick leaves it all up to you. 18 I'll do the same. 18. Warrick, J. Dir. 2008. Programming the Nation. Ignite Productions - although this is only a passing mention, Dr. Taylor was interviewed for our film and is a respected authority on the subject. His previous book, "CHOICES AND ILLUSIONS" is a New York Times Bestseller on the topic. Why is none of his research and publications on the subject included in the article in question?

2. IMDB for the film at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1023345/ - while not notable, IMDB does require verification and updates as to release dates to avoid being deleted from their film database.

3. Link to screening at 2008 Santa Cruz Film Festival: http://santacruz.bside.com/2008/films/programmingthenation_santacruz2008;jsessionid=82C79D7011757DC5067BF18500693825 - I believe, IS notable. Santa Cruz Film Festival is a 501c non-profit organization going on its 9th annual international film festival, showcasing over 50 films from around the world. The fact that "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" was also chosen as the Closing Night screening as "A Work in Progress" is also notable.

4. Link to interview with filmmaker on Randall Libero's - Spirit of Film Conversations: http://visionary-entertainment.blogspot.com/2009/07/programming-nation-with-producer-jeff.html - I believe, IS ALSO notable. While the link above only contains a brief written introduction to the film, it also contains a one hour audio interview with the show host, Randall Libero, and the filmmaker, Jeff Warrick, discussing the documentary.

5. www.digitalmediafactory.com - IS notable as it illustrates the collaboration created between production companies to produce the film. This also demonstrates verifiability - as it obviously took many individuals, enormous resources, and capital contribution to bring to fruition.

6. Link to Santa Cruz Sentinel story about Digital Media Factory which also mentions the production of "Programming The Nation?" here: http://www.digitalmediafactory.net/company/press/article.php?artid=70 - while this only gives a passing mention of the documentary, it focuses directly on the co-production company linked in #5 - a two page article in the Sunday addition of a credible newspaper - which is definitely notable.

7. http://www.goodtimessantacruz.com/santa-cruz-community-calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2009/11/14/52471/-/MzViM2IwYTI0NjViZDI2ODkxYjc2ODVmMjA2ODBkMGQ=/advance-film-screening-of-programming-the-nation.html - is a passing mention, but printed in a weekly newspaper and relevant to show how the film is being released to audiences.

8. http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/05.07.08/cover-0819.html - this is NOTABLE and states:

"The festival closes on Saturday, May 17, with a work in progress by Santa Cruz filmmaker Jeff Warrick. Programming the Nation? picks up where the 1970s bestseller Subliminal Seduction left off, only with a more contemporary and sophisticated analysis. Beyond the skulls in the whiskey ads lurks a more subtle form of manipulation; Warrick examines how it plays out in advertising, political campaigns and other forms of media. The 7:30pm screening is followed by a Q&A with Warrick, attorney August Bullock (www.thesecretsalespitch.com) and Media Watch's Ann Simonton on the prevalence of below-the-radar imagery and stereotypes in film, music and television."

9. Television Interview with Matrix News Network and Filmmaker Jeff Warrick: http://www.matrixnewsnetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2167:major-ed-dames-and-jeffrey-warrick&catid=109:past-guests-2009&Itemid=289 - while the above only contains a brief written introduction to the film, it is also extremely NOTABLE as it describes a 30 min. televised broadcast interview with the filmmaker that went out to over 30 million households throughout the US, UK and Europe.

Would you like more sources, Mike?

Would it help to have others who have contributed to the film, such as interviewees like Noam Chomsky, (MIT Professor of Linguistics/ Author / Media Critic / Activist), Amy Goodman, (Host of Democracy Now! / Author of "Static" and "Breaking The Sound Barrier"), Dennis Kucinich, (Congressman, 10th District of Ohio), Diane E. Watson, (Congresswoman, 33rd District of California in LA), Wilson Bryan Key, (Author of "Subliminal Seduction"), Howard Shevrin, Ph.D., (Researcher / Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan), Mark Crispin Miller, (Author of "Boxed In: The Culture of TV" and NYU Professor / Media Critic), Douglas Rushkoff, (Author of "Coercion" and "Media Virus"), David Fricke, (Senior Editor of Rolling Stone Magazine), Hilton A. Green, (Asst. Director to Alfred Hitchock, "PSYCHO"), Jerry Mander, (Author of "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" / Director of International Forum on Globalization), William Poundstone, (Author of "Big Secrets" series), Mark Mothersbaugh, (Founding member of DEVO and Mutato Muzika), Geoff Tate, (Lead Vocals, QUEENSRYCHE), Andy Johns, (Rock Recording Engineer on Led Zeppelin II, III, IV, and Physical Graffiti), Dr. Anthony Greenwald, (Professor of Psychology, Universtiy of Washington), Richard Beggs, (Academy Award Winning Sound Designer on "Apocalypse Now"), Christopher Coppola, (Founder of EARS XXI New Media Studios), Dr. Nick Begich, (Author of "Controlling the Human Mind" and "Angels Don't Play This HAARP"), August Bullock, (Author of "The Secret Sales Pitch"), Ann Simonton, (Former SI Swimsuit Cover Model / Founder of MEDIA WATCH), and Col. John B. Alexander (Ret.), (Author of "Future War" and "Winning The War") - cite the film and verify the "noteworthiness" of its inclusion on the subject matter?

While we're on the subject - how about including in the article on "Subliminal stimuli" - mention of the August 4, 1984 testimony at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials of the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing was presided over by the Hon. Dan Glickman, chairperson of the subcommittee. The title of the hearing was “Subliminal Communication Technology.”

See: http://alpha.fdu.edu/~gradford/subliminal.html - A Congressional Matter

"On August 6, 1984, testimony was given at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials of the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing was presided over by the Hon. Dan Glickman, chairperson of the subcommittee. The title of the hearing was “Subliminal Communication Technology.” Glickman’s opening remarks immediately framed the subject matter in sinister overtones: “This subcommittee has kind of made it a theme this year to explore in addition to the other areas of our jurisdiction those things which concern the public in a kind of Orwellian sense as a result of the nomenclature of this year 1984.”

Glickman cited the example of subliminal tapes and expressed concern that subliminal messages could be used to alter behavior. He said, “Clearly we need to take a closer look at the use of subliminal communication technology given the serious moral, ethical and legal implication posed by some of these recent advances.”

So-called experts testified with both excitement and alarm that subliminal messages could be used to encourage good driving or to manipulate an individual’s thoughts. Yet the “advances” referred to by Glickman and the “research” alluded to by experts simply did not and still do not rise above the level of what-if speculations. The conversation borders on the comical as the elected officials and witnesses indulge in what Glickman refers to as “twilight zone” implications. If this is the tone set by congressman and expert witnesses, it is not surprising to find that others speak in similar terms.

The reference to “The Twilight Zone” is indicative of another side to our talk about subliminal perception. It implies that we shouldn’t take this stuff too seriously, just as we shouldn’t take the plots seen on “The Twilight Zone” seriously, which, as we all know, is the stuff of fantasy and science-fiction. But Glickman cannot be sure it does not have some reality to it. He said, “Given the rapid advance in computer technology in this country, as well as psychological research — much of which is being done by the Defense Department — I think it is incumbent upon us in Congress to at least explore the issue to see how widespread it is and see if anything needs to be done about it.” What is this “psychological research” being carried out by the Defense Department? What is this “rapid advance in computer technology”? What is going on behind the scenes, perhaps in places like the legendary Area 51?"

or http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7226007/Subliminal-information-theory-revisited-casting.html

"Congressional hearings in 1984 had led to the most significant source of scientific controversy, which was simply whether a subliminal message could affect behavior. Lloyd Silverman said yes; Howard Shevrin was doubtful (Taylor, Sadana, & Bey, 1990). In the Judas Priest case, Shevrin switched positions based on newer research and agreed that the subliminal "Do it" command was a causal factor (Taylor, 1995).

or http://www.brainspeak.com/brainspeak-technology/brainspeak-subliminals

"A 1984 Congressional Report prepared by the House Committee on Science and Technology confirmed that subliminal messages are recorded by the brain and called upon later, as needed."

There is also Congressional transcripts of the hearing above as well as CNN footage - included in the documentary "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" - that verify its existence and need to be included in the topic of "Subliminal Stimuli".

So, it seems to me that your article on this subject is missing much more info than the simple inclusion of this documentary film in question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by IgniteTheMind (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by IgniteTheMind (talk • contribs)

The adverb "categorically" is what set off my alarms. In your post above, I was caught by the phrase "our film". Oh, really? Who is the "us" behind "our"? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)