User talk:Orangemike/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Please comment on Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Responding to RFCs

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

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Iota Nu Delta

• - Iota Nu Delta

Hi I was looking at this article , it doesn't look notable to me - Iota Nu Delta - I did a search, perhaps its locally notable, as you are more local than me in regard to this group , do you think its notable? and I wanted to prod it , can we unprotect it please. Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a fraternity with chapters on a number of campuses; I'd say that it's certainly not a speedy, and I'm not sure I'd vote D in an AfD either. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iota nu delta from 2005. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The world and the wiki was a different place in 2005 - I asked Fastily to unlock as he was the one that protected it. Can you find any reliable independent local sources that assert wiki notability? I didn't find any but I am in the UK. It looks like it should be on a list with a link to its website? Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the article looked notable, couldn't find anything regarding the group either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.20.172.52 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What can be done to permanently delete the gross and defamatory content in the page history? Specifically the stuff here and on some previous versions which lists the name, location, misdemeanor, university, and student club in which he is involved. More gross content is in the talk page as well. The motivation for posting this was defamation. (Winfinity (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

User:Comm Department, ICMPD

Hello Orangemike! First, I'd like to thank you for your prompt action concerning User:Comm Department. I'd also like to let you know about several single purpose accounts (Jeninwien, Boggess11, Valerie.w, and Loestr) that have begun editing and advocating on the exact same topic as Comm Department. The new users deny any affiliation (See: AfD), however I find a sudden uptick in new and interested editors rather incredible. Think it's worth checking these users out? Regards, JFHJr (㊟) 18:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I want very hard to assume good faith here. It's possible that some of the infelicities in common are because all of these accounts are native speakers of another language, possibly German. If you are convinced of sock- and/or meat-puppetry, take it to Checkuser. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

El-viz Guru Bhai

(Message placed on your user page, moved here by talk page stalker. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC))
Hi Orange mike I recieved a comment from you regards my photo "El-viz Guru Bhai". I am Billy Nashad the copyrigfht holder and taker of this photo. You mis-spelled my surname as Rashad that might have been a typo..Anyway mike I need your help. You see I have been drafting an article called "El-viz Guru Bhai : Prince of Peace World Tour" on my user page. To this article I added my relevant photos from the "Tour". However I was advised by another administrator John from Reading that the article could not be written by myself so I wanted to redirect it to my sponsors but by mistake I deleted the article. The article was deleted by a Jimfbleak :( !!! . Please Please Please can you help me restore it as a lot of hard work and time has gone into this article and My sponsors have now agreed to finish and verify it...Thank You. Elviz77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elviz77 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're the guy in this picture, how can you be the taker of the photo? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP deletion

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

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ninja (disambiguation)

I'm not sure if you need to clear your cache or if there is some other misunderstanding, but your edit removed a number of valid links from the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Chris Harris disambiguation page

Hello Orangemike. I understand the point you are making and that your entry was of course in good faith. I had never heard of Mr Heaton-Harris before so I don't know if his name is often shortened to Harris in general usage. If so, I would keep him on the list. If not then I don't think it is sensible to add him to what is a very long list of people who are harder to find with every new name added. But I would welcome the views of any other editors, particularly if there is any official Wikipedia policy or guidance on this. Any views, anyone? Best wishes. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Stewards elections

Hi Mike, sorry to see you fall out of the stewards elections. Small consolation but of the noms you're the one that I see around here doing the most actual "stuff" so you'd have had my vote. danno 21:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I was at the WM Foundation offices in San Francisco earlier this year, I didn't internalize that I had to jump through that particular set of hoops all over again. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Magazine vs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Magazine (2nd nomination)

Hi,

Looks like an IP editor removed the first AfD tag with this edit. Mtking ^(edits) 02:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Since the second AFD had no !votes, I deleted it and fixed the AFD tag to point to the first AFD. I also semi-protected the article for 7 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

go orange mike you DUDE xxx

Scorps44 (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Union account

Hey Mike. The account you just blocked is back with a slightly different username: User:UA3045W. As they are readding the link to their website,[1] I'm not sure what to do here. Maybe you could drop them a line. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 16:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather disappointing; blocked the sockpuppet and the sockmaster. (Rather embarassing for me, since I'm a member of UAW 1981 myself!) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What can you do. The Interior (Talk) 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep on keeping on, is all. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ktrainentertainment requesting unblock

Please check this editor's talk page and see if he now meets your conditions for unblock. His name is the same as that of the firm promoting the artist Ketsia. He has agreed not to 'edit any articles relating to Ketsia' and he has offered to rename his account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, per WP:ROPE. Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Orange Mike

Well first off, thanks for being friendly to the newbies. I enjoyed reading your bio page and in particular that you could not stand southern politics and went north (hopefully it is better there). I have so many thoughts about that myself coming from New Orleans. It can be entertaining but that is not always such a good thing.

Yes I look up personal comment after Kjmonkey wrote on my page that I was being snide. One of the 1st comments is that it is best to sometimes ignore an offhanded comment instead of taking offense. So you deserve a star in this reguard. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that I am having such a hard time with Kjmonkey, in that she commented and she was not even involved. So much for mediation, but I will try once more.

I just came across a new website and wanted to get your thoughts. www.theamericandreamfilm.com

I suppose that I should keep these comments to a limit, not sure if this is the place to talk like this. I hope you can help me with making Wiki more informative and NPOV. Any help you can give to arrive at a good end result. all the best Snettie 03:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talk • contribs)

Your intentions are good, but you need to be a bit more heedful of the advice that other editors are giving you. The experience of being re-written, having your contributions cut back or deleted, etc. is just part of the collaborative process, and does not necessarily reveal a darned thing about the editors', their attitudes or beliefs, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your ears

... may be burning... --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard case involving Jespah

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban of Jespah". Thank you. OlYeller^Talktome 17:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you...

for your Welcome to Wikipedia and its encyclopaedic project. I wish you a constructive day. -- Abracus (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well since you were the person to welcome me here and are an experienced editor, I think you might be the one to point me in the right direction. (Or to use a more colloquial wording: You're stuck with my question.) What are the policies of en.wp regarding Single purpose accounts such as [2]? Thank you for yourt time. --Abracus (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a page for reporting spammers, called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (WP:RSPAM for short). In this case, since it was particularly blatant and they'd gotten plenty of warning (including from you), I've blocked them as a spam-only account. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So I just went over

to look at voting in the steward election, but could only find one name that I could relate to and then discovered . . ....... well you know how that ends. Sorry that I could not cast one for you, perhaps next time. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we had a conflict of interest with this guy

Regarding User:Diegolo.wtnr, his edits to the now-deleted WTNR Radio were obviously COI. CityOfSilver 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

But that goes to WP:COIN, not to WP:UAA. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Either way, he ought to be blocked. I'll go there then. CityOfSilver 19:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page

I have responded on my talk page. Please keep in watchlisted for the duration of the conversation since I will keep responding there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Political positions

Hello. I thought you might be interested to contribute to a thread I started at Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of... Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you did not respond due to potential canvassing concerns, I posted at the talk page of all five people who commented under Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul. I am arguing that all Political positions of... articles violate NPOV through a non-neutral article title which does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I am suggesting we move all of these articles to Politics of... articles. This would end the current problem all these articles have: they encourage editors to find only political positions of the said politician (one viewpoint) even if no notable person or organization has commented on that position. If you have a recommendation about how I can move this conversation along, (am I not in the right venue?) please assist. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Mike, Thanks for the note. Please email me: mroth (at) wikimedia.org and we'll set up a time to chat. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How come these articles are not also nominated for deletion

Hi Orangemike,

How come these articles are not nominated for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oaktree_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Lin_Chin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Evans_(humanitarian) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Poverty_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikki_Ziegler

There are plenty of instances where articles have no references, are edited by one sole user and that user has 'disappeared', are not notable and are peacocks but they continue to be on Wikipedia, some as early as 2008. Surely this is not allowed?

Can I nominate articles for deletion, or is it just admins?

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

No, anybody can nominate an article for deletion. I generally suggest that first they propose for deletion; see WP:PROD for details. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sondra Pope-Roberts/Wisconsin politics burnout

Hi-Would you please look at the Sondra Pope-Robert article? One of the editors may have a COI. Right now, I am going through a bad Wisconsin politics burntout. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I just survived a Wisconsin recall election and now there is a special election to fill a Wisconsin Assembly seat. I know I should start more articles about members of the Wisconsin Legislature/Supreme Court, etc., and my apologies for not doing so. Thank you for your editing and please said my greetings to your wife and family-RFD (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trial as an adult

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Mohammed Schools

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Schools of Atlanta As an FYI, I wrote "Mohammed Schools (Georgia)" using reliable sources (Atlanta Journal Constitution articles) I am surprised that none of the participants attempted to do a Google News search While it is the responsibility of the pro side to find sources and prove notability, I'm still surprised that nobody on the con side attempted a Google News search to check for notability WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The new version is an order of magnitude better than the prior one that was deleted. You are to be congratulated! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

I contacted everybody from the page because I hope to educate them on how to deal with these kinds of AFD issues in the future.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:

I would think you would know better than to insert an unsourced comment that refutes what is supported by three scholarly journals. Further, Bill Clinton popularized 'Third Way' in the US and that is what the New Democrats support. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

But the term "Third Way" is alien to Americans; that's all I was saying. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So is the real meaning of the term 'social liberal'. It doesn't make it any more or less true. Toa Nidhiki05 21:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete ... was never encyclopedic in the first place

Hi Orangemike.
RE: Your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting
It's not that I disagree, but I'm curious. Why "strong". The nominator's rationale is sound, but I wouldn't have said "strong". More so, why "was never encyclopedic in the first place. This should have been gone years ago." It overlaps the content in the mainspace article, and what extra it has is not encyclopedic, and the userspace version doesn't belong in userspace. But your words seem to imply that the userspace version is particularly bad in some way that I don't see. Or am I overanalysing? I'm asking because I like to understand any "strong delete" !votes from well-established Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The incident was trivial from the git-go - police blotter material, not encyclopedic content. Not everything that happens involving a gun and a campus has any place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-referencing and use of a "pipe"?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. First of all, I certainly did not add that "pipe" - it was added by someone calling themselves User: Have mörser, will travel on 28 September 2011 - which you can easily check. I would never have made such a blatant self-promotion. Secondly, the reference to my book is really a reference to two works written by Homer H. Dubs, one in 1938 and one in 1945, which I discuss in the introduction to my book and are both properly referenced with details in the bibliography. I made the link to my book as Homer Dub's volumes have been long out of print and difficult to find and thought it would be easier for readers to check there. I apologise if this is overstepping the mark. In any case - it should not be a problem for much longer as I have been asked by a well-established and respected publisher of academic works to reprint my book with them and I am presently getting it ready for republication. I hope this answers your concerns. If not, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add in my above note that I also referred to notes by another famous sinologist, A. F. P. Hulsewé‚ basing himself on a "thoroughly documented article on the weights and measures of the Ch'in and Han periods by Wan Kuo-ting," in T’oung pao Archives, Vol. XLIX, Livre 3, 1961: 206-207, where he says that the Han chi, equalled 0.231 metres (or 9.095 inches). This means that the Han li works out to be exactly 415.8 metres (as there were 1800 Han chi in a Han li). Hulsewé in his notes rounds this off to 416 m.

I would also like to point out that I have been set up and then subjected to an unwarranted personal attack by Have mörser, will travel on the Editing Talk:Li(unit) page at [[3]] You can see my reply there. Can someone please do something to stop this sort of unfair attack? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on finding a real publisher; there are no polite words to describe my opinion of BookSurge, which is predatory and despicable even by Amazon standards. I did not mean to disparage you as a subject-matter expert in a field where I am quite ignorant. The references should have been to the Dubs and Wan material, not to your own, to avoid even the appearance of self-advertisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your block of Ctb500

I think that there may possibly have been a mixup over this block: some of the edits cited as vandalism by User:Onewhohelps appear to be legitimate. Perhaps you could take another look at this (and see also Wikipedia:Help_desk#Adding_the_citation_.2F_blocked_by_crazy_editor) . AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi,

I have looked at the edits again. I think it was more spamming than anything else. I identified some spamming in Huggle, plus it had already said that he had been warned, I checked and the warning was from a user rather than a bot so I reverted the edit and warned.

There was 1 and 2 plus the other's you mentioned were vandalism.

The person that I mentioned who reverted it was User:Calabe1992.

Thanks. :) --Onewhohelps (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations are not acceptable links

Murmur is from 1983; there is no way it is going to be out of copyright, and there is no reason to believe that the "hosting" of it on some Romanian website is not going to be a copyright violation, and thus forbidden under WP:EL. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd believed that as it was a radio station owned by the Romanian government that they had bought the rights to broadcast the albums on their internet site. I'm shocked that you have information that a European country which is a member of NATO and the European Union should be guilty of such blatant copyright violations. Can you direct me to where you have read about this copyright violation? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been my experience that websites in the former Easter Bloc tend to have a rather cavalier attitude towards copyright, and that any copyright material found on such websites must be presumed to be a copyright violation unless demonstrated otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that response. Can you link me to an example of where, not a private website, but a government in Europe which was part of the former Easter Bloc has boldly flaunted copyright laws? It's worth stressing that we are not talking about a pirate radio station here, but a government website owned by a currently respected and respectable government. I understand that you would have caution about a private site (regardless of its location), but given that this is a government site, I find it almost beyond belief that they would refuse to comply with a take down notice and face the political embarrassment and pressure that would result - and I find no evidence of such an event occurring. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The site is felt to be legitimate - see Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Radio3net. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Solarflarephoto

His unblock request and subsequent discussion meet all our usual conditions, and his requested new username is OK. How do you feel about it? Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks solid to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous (street meat)

Please Orange Mike-- read the following -- I tahnk you for any assistance that you may provide. I am a person with feelings and make mistakes, but I try to do good, always. <redacted lengthy self-advertisement>Mig (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following what we are trying to convey to you: you have an insurmountable conflict of interest with regard to yourself and your film, and must observe our norms in this sensitive area. Instead, you keep repeating your self-advertisements, apparently trying to get a different answer. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmong Dawb Wikipedia

Orangemike, do you know any Hmong people in Milwaukee?

There is a Hmong Dawb Wikipedia test that needs help in building up content: http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/mww In addition the Wikimedia Interface also needs to be translated into Hmong.

There is a meta page on this at meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Hmong Daw

If you know Hmong people, please refer them to the meta page and the incubator page. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EuroGentest

hi

i received the above message reference in response to a query that i made about placing some information on wikipedia about various procedures in genetic testing. whilst the information was researched and written for a project, i do not wish to place the information on wikipedia in order to promote the project. the material is simply impartial, factual, information for public consumption and which has been peer-reviewed by the european journal of human genetics.

i am also a little confused as to why my account has been blocked when there is already a wikipedia page in existence for the project on which i work which has not been blocked.

as requested, i have changed my username in order to reduce any confusion about whether or not i am trying to place the material on wikipedia in order to promote a product.

many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmckeown (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You might be interested to know you are being accused of racism here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

COI tag

Hello Orangemike, the COI tag was put again on Paul Polansky's page, even though it's not justified. The article is completely neutral and I'm no longer a contributor to it, as a matter of fact, all my previous contributions have been removed. Do you agree? Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puregoldxxxx (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign Puregoldxxxx (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

You've been editing the article within the past four days! You don't seem to know when to stop. --Orangemike (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to find the needed sources, that's all. Puregoldxxxx (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Ecumenical council

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Soundviewschool

Could you comment on your block of User:Soundviewschool? I had unblocked the account to allow for a name change and the user has not made any other edits since. She's only had a day to put in the name change and it seems reasonable that she simply hasn't had the time yet. --Danger (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy buttonwork on my part; should be okay now. (And the teacher's a he, I believe.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, definitely parsed that incorrectly. --Danger (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tim Kish

I noticed that you deleted that page a couple times a few years back. Unfortunately, it's blocked from page creation and it's now needed, as Tim Kish is now the interim head coach of the Arizona Wildcats and as such, needs his page. I've already started putting together the page at User:Kevin W./Sandbox Tim Kish but I'd like to move it to the proper namespace so others can work on it as well. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 07:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Penned in the Margins / Tom Chivers AfD?

Hello - I just noticed that you blocked Pennedinthemargins. I recently started an AfD discussion to one of his articles (Emily Critchley). On the basis that the only other two contributions made by this user, Penned in the Margins and Tom Chivers, appear similarly to represent a conflict of interest, I wondered if you thought it worth beginning AfD discussions for these, too? Self-promotion on Wikipedia is one of my pet peeves, but I realise it may not alone be grounds for deleting the articles! So I'd appreciate your thoughts, as an experienced Wikipedian. CouldBeAnybody (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Each article should be considered on its own merits; I certainly could see a case for AfDs on both. Remember, though, that COI or even autobiography is not itself an argument for deletion! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Political Parties

Thanks for the offer to help with POL 214! Sgelbman (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

George Soros

Could you watch the Soros article? I just think another editor's rewrite is going a bit fast and some baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Royal United Hospital

I see you have protected Royal United Hospital. I am slightly perturbed by your edit summary - as far as I know no one has "tried to get me fired". I am trying to be very careful with language so as not to inflame the situation.— Rod ^talk 15:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hope the new summary is more satisfactory; good luck (speaking as a union steward as well as a fellow editor). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I dfon't see any difference - do I need to clear cache or something? (& thanks)— Rod ^talk 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike

I mentioned referring editors (perhaps sympathetic to SPUSA) to you, as a knowledgeable and honest Wikipedian who could be trusted to give a second opinion. It was about filling in the field "successor=" at SPA's infobox. (If you want to be informed about such positive referrals, then please let me know.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I should also mention that what I wrote makes little sense now. (The time stamp suggests that I hit submit right before having to leave for breakfast and the opening session of a conference.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

please provide the diff

Hi, you did the courtesy of letting me know you reverted an edit, could you provide the diff though? μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[[4]] --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Needing advice on how to proceed

Hi there

There has been "interesting" activity on a page that I frequently update and keep an eye on Iain Benson. A user, who appears to have changed his user name three times, added two banners questioning the neutrality of the article and the notablity of the subject. I have removed both banners as they called for discussion on the talk page and there was none provided.

More concerning however are the statements made next to the edits that remain in the edit history. The user states that Iain Benson is not a professor and asserts this more than once - although he reverted his own edit later on this possibly after having checked the references. He also claims that the article is for commercial promotion and that he is a minor legal figure, essentially advertising. I see these as borderline libellous comments as they remain in the history and are not backed up.

This subject is a personal interest area of mine, related to the area of religious rights and freedoms and their protection under law. I am currently developing an article on the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms and will be looking at further articles relating to this topic. The article on Prof Benson is neither propoganda, nor advertising as claimed. If appearing not neutral, it is most likely because no-one has had anything negative to say regarding the subject. It is written in a neutral style and has been upgraded to a C class biographical article meeting all the criteria for notability. Prof Benson is also included in the most recent edition of Canadian Who's Who.

Is it possible to have the comments removed from the article history given the aspect of defamation? Also, if this user decides to put up the banners again, what is the correct procedure?

I will also refer this to JohnCD but would apprecitate any help or advice here. (Ewooll (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Nazism

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Science and Science Fiction

Hi Mike, I'm not sure if this is the way to send messages in wikipedia (still learning). I think the conference is notable but I may be biased. What does it need to meet the wikipedia criteria for notability? Would a newspaper article suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romney (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This is fine! The basic guidlines for organizations are at WP:CORP. To summarize: it is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. Substantial coverage of the subject means a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'll wait and see if the conferences picks up any press. It seems like most links on the list don't meet this criteria. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romney (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Curious block

Hi Mike, I am curious about a recent block on user Penned in the margins. I understand that he had a COI issue but he as made only five edits since 2008 and was given no warning immediately before his block. This seems a bit hasty. Writers are often a bit over-enthusiastic about promoting their projects, but I think we could assume good faith on behalf of essentially new editor. I'd like to vote for an unblock and offer to help him get to grips with Wikipedia policy, explaining why we do what we do. I don't know the history behind the case. Your thoughts are appreciated. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If the account had been used for any purpose but to publicize Penned in the Margins, its director, and one of its writers, I might be more inclined to agree with you. As it is, I suspect strongly that the account was never going to be used for any legitimate purpose here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems pre-emptive given his handful of edits. I would assume good faith. Span (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sc rail union

Hi! Would you mind looking at User talk:Sc rail union ? He/she posted an unblock request Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of California public officials charged with crimes

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gledhill Mullen Item

Please see my comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ruth_Gledhill#Mullen_item — Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 October 2011

Zack Miller

Hi,

I was looking to create a page Zack Miller as a biography of the professional golfer. It seems that the page has been protected due to repeated re-creation three years ago. As the admin who made the final deletion, I'm assuming you may have also been the one who put the protection on it. If so (or even if not!) could it now please be removed? It seems unlikely that the same spammer will return after three years, and anyway I'll very soon have a proper article put there.

Cheers,

EJBH (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The original spammer and his sockpuppet have been blocked; no harm in removing the protection. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks EJBH (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Turkism

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lewis

Hi Mike. I do not know if this is the best way to contact you, as I do not add to wiki frequently. I apologize for what you deemed as an "attack" upon lovesbooks25(sp?), but feel that the questions were warranted. Only the last sentence could appropriately be deemed an "attack" in my mind. Can you look at the history of the Michael Lewis - author - page and give me some insight into what exactly is wrong with my edits and/or why there has been such fear on the part of the people editing my inserts - first from a practical eprspective and then from a technical 'wikirules' persepective? Obviously some people out there adore Michael Lewis, and want people to read his work, but are also terrified that some facts that may not be flattering to him are revealed. What is innapropriate in Wiki's view, aside from any technical rules violations, about a fact based and cited claim that a "NONFICTION" writer is regularly innacurate, has been criticized for these innacuracies, sued for these innacuracies, and passed off fiction as nonfiction to the detriment of those bearing certain ethnic and national identities? It is scary to me the resistance that my edits have met. Terrifying in fact. The most dangerous bigot is not some poor, relatively powerless white person whose people have been forced into a position of competing for limited resources with a member of another ethnic group and "chooses" to dehumanize the "enemy", as it were, but is the well-heeled, would-be NAZI masquerading as a purveyor of fact and reality while spreading his mischaracterizations of various ethnic groups to MILLIONS. Lewis' Vanity Fair article on Ireland reads as the fictional creation of one who is unconsciously bigoted and proceeding without any oversight, and brings to mind prior anglo literary and artistic attmepts to dehumanize, minimize and ultimately destroy the Irish people. I was criticized for inserting my opinion (see my earliest edits) and subsequently used only fact, only to see a variety of apparent sycophants wipe out my insertions repeatedly. If it is against wiki policy to point out that one who passes themselves off as a "NONFICTION" writer and is DESCRIBED WITHIN WIKI AS A "NONFICTION" WRITER has regularly been criticized for innacuracies, sued for innacuracies, and recently composed an article (an article that, at some point, stopped being about an economic crisis and became a wholesale, unneccesary, irrelevant, simple-minded and innacurate deconstruction of an entire ethnic group for reasons only the author's darkest interiors could explain) that contained an ABSURD AND INNACURATE attack that was CENTERED UPON A BLATANT AND KNOWING FALSEHOOD, then please, let me know. If the inclusion of such info is OK, but the way I've gone about inserting it is lacking then, again, please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmcds (talk • contribs) 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Every sentence of your post to that other editor's talk page was an ad hominem attack, a "why won't you quit beating your wife?" rhetorical question, or some other violation of the requirement for civility on this project. If Michael Lewis wrote what you say he wrote, than he's working from wrong premises, and is clearly showing himself an idjit brainwashed by the sassenach. That's all the more reason that criticism of him and his work must be fully sourced, properly cited, and presented in a balanced way that does not constitute original research and synthesis on your part. This is truest of all when writing herein about a living person. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that every sentence is an ad hominem attack. They are provocations offered in hope of obtaining an explanation for what I see as unreasonable actions. The passage directed towards lovesbooks25 I do not believe to be uncivil, wiki's definition notwithstanding. While we're on the subject, let me add that I find many of the "editors" comments that I've read to be arrogant, condescending and hardly civil - no matter what definition we use. In any event, I will review the policies and do apologize for any violation. As for young Prince Lewis, who would, in a different world, surely like to see your kind enslaved or exterminated, I appreciate that you at least recognize my conundrum - do I take it to the streets or eat it? Now, as for your recent edit of the page and comments: 1) The man has been frequently criticized for factual innacuracies and I cite to an article doing just that. It is one of many. If a man is consistently innacurate in a variety of contexts and is criticized for same, then how is it "unbalanced" to include a statement that he is frequently criticized for innacuracy? I see no reason why the sentence stating that "Lewis has been criticized for being loose with facts" should be deleted; 2)Why is a statement of fact, within the context of Lewis's factual innacuracies, that Lewis has been sued for slander - with citation - deleted? Again, balance is about fairness and truth, not about creating a fiction so as to show how "fair and balanced" a platform is. It is a fact that Lewis has been cited for being loose with facts AND sued for same. Why the deletion?; 3) The youtube clip shows that, in irish parliament, everything is not repeated in gaelic after being spoken in english. This was the COMPLETELY FALSE CLAIM that further evinces Lewis' innacurate reporting and writing AND what he used to jump to "they do this to prove how irish they are" & then to "but they are phony in that way because they really hate themselves and their country and the proof is in the fact of massive emigration" (the combination of ignorance, foolishness, arrogance and sheer recklessness one must possess to fearlessly make such an ERROR and utilize it to DEFAME millions is astonishing, but I digress). How is the youtube clip unreliable in this context? How would one provide evidence of this falsehood OTHER than through use of the youtube clip?; 4) With all due respect, the claim that I made "sweeping generalizations" makes no sense and thus I can't really comment on that part of your note; 5) Finally, I am not offering original research in this edit per wiki's definition. Further, this is not synthesis outright, as the edit consists of the following, all factual and all cited - Lewis has been criticized for innacuracy; Lewis has been sued for slander; Lewis made something up in his article on Ireland; Lewis claimed that the Irish secretly despised their county and offered as proof the fact of emigration, EMIGRATION THAT EVERY SCHOLAR EXAMINING THE SUBJECT HAS ATTRIBUTED TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN SELF-LOATHING! All of this is properly cited. It is not my fault that Lewis has been criticized for innacuracies, sued for innacuracies, and made 2 demonstrably false claims in a lengthy article purporting to be fact-based. AND DO NOT BE MISLEAD BY THE FACT THAT I HAVE AN AXE TO GRIND. THAT IS IRRELEVANT. I HAVE A LOT MORE TO SAY ABOUT LEWIS, THE WAY HIS UNETHICAL, DANGEROUS WAY OF OPERATING IS PROTECTED BY THE PEOPLE WHO COULD OUT HIM OR SUBJECT HIM TO CRITICISM SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY IDENTIFY WITH HIM; as in, his uncle went to my grampys prep school, I grew up in a similar isolated encampment, we met at a cocktail party and i liked him, criticizing him would be criticizing people like me, and we are better than other people so i cant drag him down b/c to do so would be to drag me down etc., etc. BUT, MY BEEF DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT SYNTHESIS TO EDIT BY STATING fact1, fact2, fact3, fact4 and leave it at that. I am citing to these facts and not interpreting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmcds (talk • contribs) 04:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

HELP WITH SOURCES=

Hi- Ok I apologize for the IMDB source but why did you remove the news article sources? And the Warner Bros and Today show sources? Why are thos not considered verified? I really am trying to get this right. And why did you remove the photo yet again? I apologize for cause so many problem... Mozartchic01 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Mozartchic01

We need verification before we can use that pic. As to the others: I figured better to roll it back and do them one by one, so as to get it right. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Report OrangeMike for WIKIPEDIA STALKING

DELETED STEVE SKYLER who is a legitimate STAR on NICKELODEAN Power Rangers he is the Gold Ranger and 3rd party validation was given, You will not continue to stalk my posts and delete things that are considered true celebs or stars.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starpreneurgoddess (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC) (Starpreneurgoddess (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)).

We have minimum standards of notability; you continue to create articles about persons who do not meet those standards. Various administrators, including myself, have deleted some of those articles. This does not constitute "stalking"; it constitutes quality control. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Glentree estates and User:Goldenestates

Re User:Glentree, who you blocked... A "new" user Goldenestates (talk · contribs) has been busily re-creating Glentree estates (multiple times!). I can't see the deleted versions so don't know how similar they are, but it's quite an advert, despite their attempts at referencing it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

List of "Occupy" protest locations

Mike, perhaps my last edit there was a bit too hasty. Advice welcome. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you are standing up for procedural restraints. If either of these folks want to become admins, they should go through the RfA process. In the meantime, SNOW clearly does not apply. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. I was getting angry and that's not a good state of mind to edit. Glad it didn't cloud my judgment too much. --Crusio (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how does SNOW not apply? On what universe will this AfD not close as Keep tomorrow? —SW— ^speak 13:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• And given that you are convinced of that, why on Earth not wait for tomorrow? Why the haste? Why stifle debate (people are still commenting and !voting)? --Crusio (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Because waiting until tomorrow will change nothing, other than allowing more editors to waste their time arguing about something that has already been settled. —SW— ^communicate 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• If its settled, they don't need to argue or waste their time any more. There's no haste, as far as I know and I find it highly curious that so many people try to silence any debate about this democratic (I thought) movement. --Crusio (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Left you a reply at Inexplicably nasty tone in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of "Occupy" protest locations. Thank you. v/r - TP 16:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain deletion request of Curt Mega

He has had a role in a hit TV show, concert tour and movie. He has been in numerous well received theatre shows. He has been nominated for theatre awards. I believe that he passes the A7 criteria. Mozartchic01 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Mozartchic01

Most actors have had minor roles and trivial accomplishments like this; that doesn't bring them to the level covered in our guidelines for entertainer biographies. We can't have articles on everybody with a SAG or Equity card! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be agrumentative but he has a large cult following. As a member of the "Dalton Academy Warbler" on Fox's Glee- he participated in getting the show it's first #1 itunes recording. The Warblers are one of the most beloved characters. It is becuase of their success that the album "Glee: The Music Presents The Warblers" wsa even released. In addition- Mega has a large following with 10s of thousands of hits on Youtube videos and over 20k Twitter followers. Mega was only 118 votes away from winning the Mad Men casting call that ended several months ago. He may not be huge but he is notable which Mega and I wanted him to have a page. I don't understand why he can't have a page but Max Adler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Adler_(actor) and Ashley Fink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Fink can. They have the same number of 'notable' roles Mozartchic01 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)mozartchic01

That's the "other stuff exists, why can't this?" argument, which we do not accept. Could be that those articles should be deleted as well, for the same reasons. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This project is support by WikiProject Biography

removed template, which indicated that the topic is a biography,not that anybody "supports" it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be upset but I fail to see why with all the other stuff "As a member of the "Dalton Academy Warbler" on Fox's Glee- he participated in getting the show it's first #1 itunes recording. The Warblers are one of the most beloved characters. It is becuase of their success that the album "Glee: The Music Presents The Warblers" wsa even released. In addition- Mega has a large following with 10s of thousands of hits on Youtube videos and over 20k Twitter followers. Mega was only 118 votes away from winning the Mad Men casting call that ended several months ago." he is not considered notable enough. 207.133.71.245

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aboutcompanyman/sandbox

Hello,

I noticed that a few weeks ago, you reviewed a sandbox I had been working on. Significant edits have been made. Could you take one more look and help me align the content with wiki standards?

Aboutcompanymen (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Aboutcompanyman/sandbox. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent Deletion - Beautiful People

I'm new to creating pages on Wikipedia, and I realized after the fact that I should have been creating a page for the Beautiful People organization as a User page. I was operating under the impression that I'd have a week to organize a full article before deletion would kick in; I can see that I was mistaken. Would it be possible to retrieve a copy of the content for a starter at User:zzzzbov/Beautiful People? --zzzzBov (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Courses | Advanced Media Studies (Jennifer Geigel Mikulay)

thanks for helping us learn about wikipedia!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberstarr05 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Orangemike! My students were wading into Wikipedia today. Hopefully we didn't break anything, though there were definitely a few mistakes. I appreciate your help welcoming everyone! Jgmikulay (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hate...

Hi, I just saw this userpage with a few custom-made userboxes on what this person dislikes. Seems a bit strong to me, but I don't know whether there are any policies/guidelines against it. From previous experience with this user (who edits very nationalistically and easily erupts into edit-warring), I don't think that it would be very helpful to enter into a discussion with him. --Crusio (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am sorry for using the word "Hate" in my user page, and I am not a nationalist. Telling the truth is not nationalism. Romanski
  • One person's "truth" is another person's irredentism or even imperialism; we must all respect each other, most especially where we believe the others are being wrong and wrong-headed. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Roma,ski1996 is suddenly very generous with awards, I also got one. --Crusio (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

23 October 2011

No problem, I wont "attack" an editor again.-- Romanski Macedonia 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanski1996 (talk • contribs)

Please comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Orangemike! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Knightswood page & newbie user

Thanks for flagging up an issue I thought would resolve itself, but obviously didn't. The issue with user:66ric is that they seem to be using the Knightswood article as a noticeboard for their own hobby. I had hoped that with encouragement, they could be persuaded to read up on how to contribute to Wikipedia and be helpful in adding to the article, as they must be a local resident. A year has passed and they have obviously not read their user talk page or followed any of the advice. They have also not contributed in any meaningful way to Wikipedia since that time.

Would you be happy for me to tidy up the article, removing the COI tag? Would there be any benefit in asking for the user to be blocked? I don't believe they are knowingly vandalising the article, but acting out of ignorance. Wikiwayman (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say do cleanup, leave a message on ric's talk page, then see how it goes. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Understanding false positives?

I saw edits in the micro inverter article some time ago by a user named "green nose". There was an edit by this user on the "false positives" list, but when I look at the history it seems to point to you. See this version.

But what exactly is this list, and how do entries end up here? The user in question has re-added the content, and I'm trying to figure all of this out.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

An actual false positive is when an edit is blocked by software filters, when it should not have been. In the case of the edits by green nose, the block was not the result of a "false positive", but rather a successful thwarting of an effort to add advertisements for a particular product to the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, very interesting. The bot side of the wiki continues to impress me. So, if the material is re-added again, what would be the next step? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert again. Warn 'em, using one of the relevant templates such as may be found at WP:WARN. If they persist, report 'em at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Selby Whittingham's AfD

I think we have a sockpuppet of the one you blocked start editing Whittingham's article..... Bgwhite (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Frank Collin

I am unable to view the source which makes the claim his father was Jewish, would you be so kind as to post the full quotes on the talk page, thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the above, I found some sources on G books, I will add a source to the article later. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is about the party, not about Collin, I don't think it's really all that necessary; but no big. It's possibly the most known fact about Collin to some people, so demanding a citation just struck me as POINTy. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Strange thing, whilst looking for a source I found one which says the whole Jewish father thing was a smear job by the FBI, I posted on the talk page about it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm...

Can't we just say Fan Fiction's category us Fiction and Fictional. It's a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.76 (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Fan fiction actually exists; it is not "fictional", a category used for things which exist only within a fictional universe (like psiprints in Steven Brust's Taltos novels).

2. When a subject belongs to a more specific category, we list it in the more specific category, which is in turn a subset of the broader category: i.e., "American schoolteachers" is a subset of both "Americans" and "schoolteachers", so you don't need to add an American schoolteacher to all three categories, but just to the more specific one. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the questions

Thank you for your boisterous commentary here Mike but it did not answer my questions. What I am looking for, still looking for, is the location of the relevent policies on the subjects which I had outlined. I have no intention of building any database anywhere let alone on Wikipedia - you are jumping to conclusions - but thanks anyway for your attempt to respond. Newwhist (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to urban sprawl

New Jersey Future is a leading policy group focusing on smart growth and urban and suburban sprawl issues. In their case, focused on the nation's most densely populated state. In review of the existing links, New Jersey Future is very similar to the Greenbelt Alliance which is linked and New Jersey Future is closely aligned with Smart Growth America, whose link, by the way is an incorrect spammy link to a site in China. So, for full disclosure, I am not employed by New Jersey Future, but do help them with interactive communications. I also have extensive knowledge of growth, conservation and sustainability issues in New Jersey and other states. So, are the objections to link because I added it or because you reviewed New Jersey Future's policy documents on smart growth, transit oriented development, anti-sprawl issues, etc and don't believe it's an appropriate resource? If it's the latter, then I would recommend removing every link under the External Links section with the exception of Smart Growth America whose link should be fixed. In addition, you should carefully review the "SprawlCity" link to NumbersUSA, which is an anti-immigration site started by Roy Beck (You can learn more about Roy Beck at the Southern Poverty Law Center website. I won't make these edits as I'm concerned how my contributions are currently characterized. If you believe New Jersey Future is an appropriate resource, feel free to add it back to the page.

While I recognize and appreciate that you have extensive experience as a Wikipedia administrator, I find the presumption of spam to be onerous. I'm one of few (it seems) contributors that doesn't mask my identity with a fake user name. I have nothing to hide and I've never contributed a link or content that was not a quality online resource that would add to the quality of content on the Wikipedia page. I've never contributed a link because I was paid to do so or for search engine optimization reasons as I've always understood the "no follow" rule. I've read the external links policy and also the repeated message that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I would suggested, however, that the external links sections of Wikipedia pages are very important to readers and should not be neglected. Not lecturing; just sharing my opinion. Thank you for your time and I welcome any feedback.Ktsparkman (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

1. New Jersey Future is a specific local group, whose website is not peculiarly relevant to the article in question.

2. However you euphemize it, you clearly have a very definite conflict of interest in this matter.

3. If other inappropriate links exist, the solution is not to permit additional ones, but to scrutinize the existing ones. I will pay particular note, obviously, to your concerns about NumbersUSA being treated as if it were a reliable source.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hart of Dixie

You have recently made a change at the article Hart of Dixie that was a point of contention and currently part of a current discussion and RfC. (1) Why did you make the change? (2) Why would you make the change when consensus so far says to keep the section the way it was (before you changed it)? (3) Why make the change rather than make a comment at the RfC? (4) Why haven't you commented at the RfC? (5) Why were you there and made such a change when you've never edited there before? Your action of changing the order of reviews (along with your edit summary) almost seems like you are either thumbing your nose at the current process in place, being intentionally inconsiderate or disrupting the current process to make a point (maybe all three). Care to explain? (either here or on the article talk page). Please bear in mind that I'm not trying to accuse you of being these things, I'm just pointing out what your edit looks like sans a more detailed explanation from you. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no formal RfC under way. I saw no consensus, and thus merely put things in a more standard order, subject to further contribution by other editors (besides you and Kugelmass). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Although not formal, there is an RfC underway, and there have been three editors weighing in (two of us have said to keep it the way it was). It's easy to see from the edit history that there have been issues there. Look again, please. And - you have yet to explain why you would suddenly appear to disrupt an already contentious situation at an article you've never edited previously. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

just checked Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All: there's nothing there about this subject. I don't see what I did as disruptive, merely housekeeping. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It was my response, as an uninvolved third party, to the comments by both of you at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Biased presentation of the critical response to Hart of Dixie. I found his reasoning sound, and yours not; so I attempted to perform the requested cleanup by a neutral. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's your reasoning behind the edit, then your "response" was being intentionally inconsiderate and disrupting the current process to make a point. The consensus was to keep it the way it was, the discussion had not yet concluded, and if you really wanted to help, you should have added your voice on the matter at the talk page, not in making a disruptive edit. Really unbecoming behavior for an administrator as well as a Quaker, in my opinion. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk

It is a bit unsettling for me to share a spot so close to Republican. Orange Mike, I see why you felt you had to delete the top hat reference I added. But good God! Do you not notice the steampunks wearing them?! And if the top hats go, why do the other things remain? I see no references or especial fondness for those things that supersedes the top hats! I found the term steampunk whilst searching for a new top hat! Really, do you have to be so difficult!75.21.113.40 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The steampunks are also wearing solar topees, deerstalkers, bowlers, motoring hats with veils, and all sorts of gallimaufry. If we are to mark a particular item as distinctive, we must source the assertion, not back it up with our own personal claims. --165.189.32.4 (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, IP, but there is no "personal claim" in it. My contributions were removed because I may not have sourced one correctly - the rest was pure spite. So, what is there to tell me your mention of headgear is any better than mine? Deerstalkers over top hats?!75.21.113.40 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

University at Buffalo help

Hi Orange Mike, you have helped me in the past. Right now I am being harassed by another administrator.

On the page, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, I am trying to write on the page that it is a University Center of the SUNY system. I have multiple valid sources for this yet he denies every source I throw at him. Before I placed "Flagship", and had it placed because the University calls themselves a flagship institution (this source here says it: http://www.buffalo.edu/about_ub/ub_at_a_glance.html) yet he denied it again.

There's another problem that's going on as well. I'm trying to place pictures and media onto the page, but he not only removes my pictures off the page, but proceeds to delete my own media. This is simply corrupt and not right. I have done many things to validate my pictures, yet he still deletes it.

Can you help resolve these issues? I am not trying to be an ass and I believe I am acting in a rightful manner.

Thank you,

-David

Davidhar (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply from the other editor who is not doing any thing of the sort :

1. I am not an administrator
2. The content "University Center" or "Flagship" is not sourced to a WP:RS there is no consensus for it's inclusion.
3. The images being added are of questionable copyright status, it is not clear that the up loader has the consent of the uni to upload them with the licence he uses.
4. Even if correctly licensed they are just there to make the article look good, they do not add to the understanding of the topic.
5. as a student he has a clear WP:COI.

Mtking ^(edits) 01:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Talk:International recognition of the National Transitional Council

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Battlefield 3 Main Theme

Hi there im the user that uploaded the .ogg audio files that was removed today. Im not sure if you removed the file in terms of cypright terms or lack of source. Well im giving you an link to Amazon wesbsite that sell the official soundtracks and give users an audio sample available for try out. <link to gigantic predatory corporation website removed> ThisUserNameAgain (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Amazon as a vendor may have been licensed to use that sound; that doesn't mean the copyright holder is waiving their copyright in a way which permits its use here in Wikipedia (where we have to be really very hardnosed about copyright violations). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Hart of Dixie

There is a current RfC at the Hart of Dixie talk page. You are being notified and asked to participate because you have recently edited the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on potential conflict of interest for Scottish Informatics and Computer Science Alliance draft page

Hi Mike, thank you for you comment and of course, you are quite right that there is a potential conflict of interest. Unfortunately, there is always a trade-off between those involved being best informed and those involved having an axe to grind. The danger is that external contributions are simply rehashes of web pages that fail to discriminate between significant and insignificant information. In this case, we are being very careful to ensure that the article does not express opinions on the success/failures/performance of SICSA but simply presents verifiable information about SICSA. We are working slowly on this with the aim of ensuring that all statements are verifiable and would certainly appreciate a review that highlighted subjectivity in the piece. Iansommerville (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Nazis declared themselves officially syncretic as being neither left nor right, I put "(official)" beside it to say that was there position, but that scholars view it as far right.

There is nothing controversial about including the syncretic (neither left nor right) official political position of the Nazis that is backed up by two sources, one of which is from an interviewer who is intervewing Hitler in 1934. This was the Nazis' official position and Hitler in propaganda attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany. As I said, I put in the official position, while not claiming it is necessarily true, as I retained the position claimed by scholars that identify it as far-right. I have the sources to back it up, they can be examined via Google Books, there is no controversy.--R-41 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that they were the very epitome of the Big Lie, I see no reason to give any space whatsoever to what they claimed to be in the infobox. You could put a line or two in the body of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat by user The99declaration

Yesterday you blocked The99declaration for being a promotional account. I'd previously warned them about WP:COI editing, but hadn't taken them off my watchlist, and this morning, I noted a threat of legal action posted to the account Talk page, ostensibly written by an attorney representing the group. You, or another admin, may wish to review and/or modify the block reason to reflect the WP:NLT violation. I did take the liberty of directing them to the NLT policy and advised them that until and unless the legal threat was retracted, the account would remain blocked. Cheers, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The threat seems to have been withdrawn properly. Now we've just got the name problem, the COI problem, the NPOV problem, and the repeated BLP violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Baby steps... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

The information on that article is false, and was only tring to improve the article which I will continue to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKIPteen (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — UKIPteen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then discuss it on the article's talk page. An edit by somebody with your username is unlikely to go unreverted. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

Why do you want ANAT technology and Robotics Design deleted, even though the first improves education and the latter has been here for years, and improves Western society in regards to health, the environment and industry?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) — Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please sign your comments, Canadiansteve. New editors with a conflict of interest such as yours almost always have a hard time understanding key Wikipedia concepts like notability and the neutral point of view and the absolute importance of reliable, independent sources. The bottom line is that you have, so far, failed to demonstrate that your technology and your company are notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serer people

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Mississippi Democrat Page

Hi, you recently commented on my talk page about the MS Democratic Party article. I am in a U.S. Political Parties class at Illinois State University and it is our semester project to edit various state party pages. I had included the platform from the party website because it was part of my project, and intended to edit it to make it less of a copyright violation. Is there a way I can properly include this important party information? Masuhi (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Within the context of a party which has existed for over 160 years, this year's platform (see WP:UNDUE) is not important information; it's just another primary source document. Wikipedia articles do not contain vast undigested chunks of primary sources. What is there in the literature about the evolution of the party's platform? Has anybody compared and contrasted, say, the 2011 platform with the 1961 (defiantly segregationist, I suspect) platform, or the secessionist 1860 platform? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on StevensRE Talk Page

Thank you for your feedback on the StevensRE Talk page. I have created a new, individual account. I apologize as I was not aware of the group rule. Also, thank you for the pointer about the No Legal Threats policy - that was not at all my intention and I will be sensitive to how I word things moving forward. Quick follow up question - I had created a proposed section for an entry on the StevensRE userspace page for review because of COI and have a Request Edit tag for that change. Given the status of the StevensRE account, do I need to resubmit that COI edit request and post it to a new userspace page, or is it still OK as is for review? Thanks again for the assistance and feedback.QueenCity11 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Jill Billings

Hi-I started an article about Jill Billings. She won a special election for the 95th Assembly District seat that Jennifer Shilling held prior to moving to the Wisconsin Senate. If you can make any improvements to the article this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Better? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I'm an anti-deletionist who thinks the world is intelligent just the way it is. That pretty much makes us extremists on the opposite ends, action wise. Therefore I think your approach is intelligent and important. Please use the talk page on Nirvana, for me, your perfect opposite, for the next few days OK? Please? BTW, I hope to learn lots from you there (or here). Thank you. — CpiralCpiral 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's currently being discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Nirvana. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

which public goods were sold to the koch bro?

have any US public assets been sold off in the past 3 years, if so to who, and were they somehow connected to whitehouse or "ruling party". Did you know blackwater aka xe is the state dept 3rd largest supplier, do you consider the current ruling party right? for-profit school operators, do you mean havard or yale? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Economics Department of Florida State University, for example.

Yes, the sell-offs continue quietly, to the highest bidder. Blackwater is still out there, did you think that was secret? The current ruling party is moderately conservative with a progressive veneer. By for-profit school operators, I mean Apollo, K12, Strayer, Corinthian, Kaplan, and all the voracious rest of 'em. (Oddly enough, my public schools taught me how to spell and to use capital letters.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

what is your source for fsu selling the econ dept to koch? in fact the exact opposite of what you said is happening, the nationalization of private business like GM. i dont use capital letters because they are not needed, example, did my use of lower case letters confuse your comprehension of this post? you capitalize Mike in the font, but not in your username the mike is lowercase? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

do you think health care should be local, national or global? if global, should the people in the usa get by with a lower standard of health care and donate resources to countries with a far lower standard? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for helping me with my user page. I typed up a few scant details about myself. I need to think about how I can improve that on page St. Boniface (Milwaukee). I'm inexperienced in Wikipedia so I'm not sure this is the best way to express my gratitude. - Citizn65 Citizn65 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Elisa Gabrielli

Hi Mike, I wonder if you saw the info you requested? I posted it user verifiability, and someone copied it to Talk, but I can't tell if it's in the right place because all the recent comments...the ones I can figure out anyway, don't seem to have seen anything at all. I was super specific as you suggested, but maybe didn't submit it in the right place ....If I need to post it differently, please let me know. Thanks. Juniper99 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

All that information needed to be posted to Talk:Elisa Gabrielli. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

HI, OK....it's there. thank you. Is that linked to my page so people who are assesssing see it? Anyway, thanks for your guidance in this matter. All the best, Juniper99 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

By definition, the talk page of an article is accessible by clicking a tab at the top of the page thereof. Anybody who is participating in a discussion about an article should be very fully aware of that. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Question.

According to The WP:BLPPROD Page it says that Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. So some people I see added the BLPPROD to pages and then someone removes them without addressing the problem they claim that the external links work as references. I don't think they do what is the answer on that? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The mere provision of an external link does not constitute providing a source, in my opinion. What is/are the article(s)? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

in your opinion it doesn't, but in my opinion it may. Read WT:BLPPROD and see that confusion, misalignment and disagreement still exists. BLPPROD is a very harsh penalty that shouldn't be used because someone doesn't know how to use our strange <r ef> system. The-Pope (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMike they are these articles. Alejandro_Figueroa, Maximiliano_Calzada, Darkin_Serna, Leonel_Herrera_Silva, Leonel_Herrera_Rojas, Agustín_Salvatierra. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say they are marginal, but sufficient to over-rule BLPPROD (subject to the arcane rules of notability for sports and athletes). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans, no edit summary

I've been editing that article, but are you sure you have the right person? You only seem to have one edit lately about adding women to something, with supporting discussion on the talk page; nothing to do with me. I have very extensive edit summaries (often running out of space) and usually discussion on the talk page. Student7 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern is your effort to keep the stated fact of strychnine poisoning by Americans out of the article, in spite of the proper sourcing of the statement. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Rohner Research

I *knew* expert attention was necessary!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is in trying to deal with an obvious violator of multiple rules (role account, COI, group account name) and balancing that with the obligation not to be "bitey". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It makes total sense to me. I'm just too new around here to understand all the policies at the same time, but I could see something was dicey there. Thanks for your quick and decisive action.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Independence Party

When I mean by Left-Wing I also mean far more Socialist as well. The Nazis were Far Right, but their Economic Policy was Left-Wing. I don't think you should be harrasing people on Poltical pages because you clearly don't have a clue about politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.P. Davies (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a historian, magna cum laude B.A. in History, with a Minor in Political Science. I was a major party nominee for my state's legislature when I was 20 years old. I've been a delegate to two national political party conventions, and been active in my union's Political Action Committee. I can also type, spell and use capitalisation according to U.S. or U.K. rules. Apparently none of the above applies to you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Spectrum

It looks like you still haven't learned about the Political Spectrum yet. I wish you could stick with your own country's poltics, and stay away from British politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.P. Davies (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Like the English have stayed away from French, Irish, Scotch, Welsh, Cornish, and Manx politics? Sorry, I'm not that provincial. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No

That really wasnät reasonable, was it_ I am not at all happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.241.234.4 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Almoravid dynasty

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hoare death in Lede.

Dear Orangemike, would you mind commenting quickly on a problem I see in the article on Sean Hoare? Hoare's wiki article was created after he was found dead during the News of the World hacking scandal, of which he was at the center; Hoare's testimony helped lead to the resignation of police commissioner Paul Stephenson (police officer) and arrest of Andy Coulson, who had been David Cameron's communications director. One user, Off2riorob (talk) has deleted any mention of Hoare's death during the News of the World scandal in the lede, and has also deleted the article discussion, calling it "stale." You can see our exchange on the matter here. Am I wrong on this? Perhaps I'm losing my sense of objectivity, but it seems to me that there is a strong editorial line being followed and very assiduously pressed. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk lead photo issue

OM, I just caught the meaning of your post. I wanted you to know, I did not mean you at all when I asked who switched the photo. I was enquiring as to the editor who made the change without consensus. The page history did not seem to show who it was did it. In this matter I am with you until we can agree whether to change the photo and what to put in its place. You were right to revert that kind of major change. Djathinkimacowboy 06:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Userpage moved into mainspace.

Hello. I have just noticed a userpage where I was slowly and labouriously building a list article was moved into mainspace last week.

The offending page was User:lozleader/lcc, where I had copied and pasted a table from another article (a list of London councillors by electoral district) and was using this as the template. Basically the same electoral districts were used over an extended time period and I was filling in the blanks. As it was my own userpage I knew how far through the process I had got.

Unfortunately the incomplete page was taken "as was" and put into mainspace. This appears to have been due to an entirely good faith request by another editor. What I am astonished about is that neither the editor nor yourself appear to have notified me and it was only when I noticed the redlink this morning that I knew this had happpened.

Just to reiterate the article was not finished... I'm wondering if I need to put notices on my userpages now telling people that something is a work in progress? Thank you for your attention.

There is more discussion (one-sided at the moment) here: User talk:Jackiespeel#What the?.

Lozleader (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aaargghh! I thought that was done at your request and with your consent! Already moved it back to User:Lozleader/lcc. (And yes, a "work in progress" tag is by no means a bad idea.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh very good. I see someone has tagged it for me. Cheers.Lozleader (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD Question

I have a question I came across this article Yuvraj Thakur. I was wondering since there is a facebook link there in external links but no references should I go ahead and mark it using the BLPPROD Deletion tag?--Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly; a Facebook page is no evidence of anything other than that somebody set up a Facebook page. I've seen them created in the name of hoaxes, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have another question I came along this Article Divine Saviour School should I do an A3 speedy delete tag. Or A1? Or none.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that was an A1 all right. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nerdist Podcast

I noticed your comment in this edit. Do you have evidence that the show's creators are encouraging people to spam the article? --Pnm (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. See User:Spamwick's own admission at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Baffling removal of accurate information. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, Orange Mike, I left a simple, respectful request that was polite and in no way contentious, and you're response about Facebook and our egos was entirely rude and asshole-ish. You wanna talk about what's unnecessary on Wikipedia? Your shitty, condescending attitude. Your arrogant "better than everyone" tone is PERFECT for Facebook. Go cock-joust with people there. There is NOTHING wrong with being respectful next time, even if you don't agree with my point. I'm not trying to "abuse" wikipedia. This was something people in our very large community requested on this page. I get that you volunteer your time in the name of the greater good but don't treat people like they fucking work for you. I don't. Good luck with that attitude. Spamwick

Soft Redirect Question

I came across this page INMP it has two soft redirects but I don't think it should be like that should I change into a disambiguation page? Or is it okay as it is? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Give that there is no such term anywhere in the article Internet slang, I just converted it to a standard redirect to the museum. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veterans Day

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of National Hip Hop Political Convention

The article National Hip Hop Political Convention has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Continuation War

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia projects

This and this sounds as if collaboration has fallen as the first victim of the election wars. It seems these two are determined it's their way or the highway. So be it. There's no point to trying to get consensus with people who think it's irrelevant. 99.50.190.206 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD not added to log

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside Bozeman was not added to the AfD log.[5] I see you used Twinkle so I don't know what happened. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 4 had been created [6] but had no listings yet. Four days have passed so I suggest you add it to today's log. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Snotbot put it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Block of user Beachgolf

Hello, I'm an admin in it.wiki (see here). I've been contacted by the user Beachgolf who is translating the article "Beach Golf" from other wikis. He told me that his translation of the italian version of this article on en.wiki was deleted and his account here was blocked (by you) for "spamming". I can assure you that the italian version of the article is not spam and is, in turn, the translation of the same article present on es.wiki, fr.wiki and pt.wiki. Maybe the user is not very familiar with the english language and his choice of words was not the most appropriate (I observed he tends to translate things a little bit too literally and this could have caused the "spamming" feeling), but for sure he's not a spammer - at least, he's not operating as such on it.wiki (and I'm amongst the most active admins against spamming in it.wiki) and he's operating in full good faith. So, it appears that this block is somehow excessive, at least its duration (indefinite): please take into account that this guy is a newbie (myself had to explain him some basics on how to contribute on wikipedia), he's not spamming based on direct personal interests/involvements, the italian article he was trying to translate is respecting the neutral and not-promotional point of view. The user, due to his inexperience and due to this block, doesn't know how to express his good reasons to the en.wiki community so he asked me for support. Therefore, I kindly ask you to reconsider your action based A) on assumption of good faith and B) on understanding that newbies may unwillingly do mistakes. Thanks and have a good job.--L736E (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The article had already been deleted once (under the name Beach golf), as being a non-notable variant of golf.

2. The tone of the language is very favorable, very promotional in format and word choice; so much that I was forced to the conclusion that User:Beachgolf (whose only edits were to create this article) is the inventor of the "game" and/or a staffer for the BGSA (whose website is beachgolf.net).

3. I note that he has not done anything to appeal the block, or to establish that he is not the inventor and/or a BGSA staffer. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Orange Mike:

1. The user is not the inventor of the game: the evidence is on it.wiki, where this article was first created in 2008 by a totally different user, see [7], same on es.wiki article created in 2009 and in fr.wiki article created in 2009. This user contributed to this article on it.wiki, in a neutral way, just in the very last days and no admins nor users complained about his edits. I'm perfectly aware that Wikipedia can't be claimed as source for itself, but the fact that very different authors created the articles quite far in time should be a clear evidence that the user he's not the inventor nor a BGSA staffer - looks too me you rushed too fast to this conclusion. Consider the sum of an appassionate fan who's not mother-speaking english and makes the mistake of translating the typical latin way of expressing into a more or less literal anglo-saxon translation. I guess that none in such situation would have even consider the nedd to "give evidence I'm not the inventor", he simply took it for granted.

2. His one was the "only" article on en.wiki just because it was also his "first one" since he was freshly registered - too few contributions to conclude that this is a "spam only" user.

3. How could he appeal the block if he was blocked? He told me he tried but no way for him to access en.wiki, due to your block. That's why he asked for my help, since I'm tutoring him on it.wiki, and he doesn't know other ways to express his point than asking me as tutor. I may agree that the user may have used an incorrect phrasing but it looks to me that WP:AGF has to be taken seriously into account in this situation. There are clear evidences, that this user is not "inventing articles". Nor we have evidence, at least looking at his contributions on it.wiki, he's a staffer or promoter for BGSA or any other organization. It's just your conclusion. It would have been enough to follow the interwikis and look at the history of the other similar articles to understand it. I think that in this particular case, the benefice of doubt should be taken into account and there's room to lower the block for this user from "indefinite" to something definitely shorter, while this user gets more confindent and acquainted with the mechanisms in Wikipedia.

If it's just a matter of bringing the evidence he's not a BGSA staffer or something similar, please give me direction I can forward this user so he can safely proof it (but again, where is WP:AGF?) --L736E (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

When I blocked him, I left instructions on how to appeal the block on his talk page (I just double-checked, in case I had not done so; in fact, I did leave the instructions). Instead, he first scribbled some random letters, then added "ok". The combination of promotional language with a username like that created a (rebuttable) presumption that this is a spam account. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor/admin, I'd like to point out that the block was not addressed in the unblock requests. Having looked at the deleted article, it looks like spamming from the tone of the piece. There are (from what I can see) two things that need to be done here:

1. The user needs to issue a correct unblock request via the mailing list, addressing the reason for the block
2. There needs to be some indication that the subject meets this Wikipedia's notability guidelines - as it stands, I see no evidence that it meets those criteria (and no reliable, independent sources were provided - or could be found by myself - to indicate the subject's notability. I'm don't know what the Italian Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are, but this does not appear to meet our criteria.

As it stands, I see no reason to unblock the editor, nor to allow an article on this subject to be created. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Should I do a CSD A7 or a BLPPROD on this article Sabrina Vaz? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like somebody took care of it already. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but also another question could you or someone revert this template {{IUCN2011.1}} to the original format as it doesn't match how the IUCN Redlist wants there information to be cited as the original one of that template did as someone added took it out and replaced it with the {{IUCN}} template.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I just found this Article I want you to look at Rev. Henson T. Dent I was wondering should I just do a CSD A7 or just leave it as it is? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue with RFC listing

Hi, I followed up to your talk page from RFC request board. I requested an RFC on Talk:Taliban using {{rfc|pol}}, its been a few hours but the bot seems to not have listed it in the appropriate section. Can you help? Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD-related request

Hello! If you've got a moment, could I ask your opinion as a third party neutral in regards to this rant and personal attack leveled by the subject of an article up for AfD? I think preserving the comment in a drop frame is appropriate, titled "response from Davina Reichman" or somesort, but the accusations are pretty inappropriate. I've been pretty involved in the article and am not inclined to take this kind of action myself. Is it something that ought to stay? JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't care what was said about me. It's about the other editor. JFHJr (㊟) 05:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center

Responding to RFCs

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

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Block tag

re [8], you forgot to actually block them ;) --Jac16888 ^Talk 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion.
Message added 01:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Senkaku Islands

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for deletion of – LOLI Database

Just a note, you did not transclude this article in the Articles for deletion log page when you nominated it for deletion, as required in step 3 of the subsection "How to nominate a single page for deletion” on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page. Another user has performed this step for you to complete the process. In the future, please follow all of the required steps when nominating an article for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

New Autoblog.com Article

Hello Orangemike. Since you are the sysop who deleted the previous article about Autoblog and AutoblogGreen back in 2008, I thought I'd ask you to take a look at my recreation of this content at Autoblog.com. Any advice or suggestions you might have on improving the article would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi Orangemike,

I just wanted to let you know that I sent you an email a few minutes ago. Thank you in advance for your consideration!Braedon Farr (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Rashumon

Can you swing by Rashumon and check out my edits? I think I've gotten it to the point where the {{Wikify}} and {{Dead end}} tags can be removed, but I want someone else to do a quick sanity check of sorts, and since you've already been involved there...

Also, that page might need to be tagged with {{Advert}}. I've tried to tone it down, but... I'm just not happy with it, and would like someone else's opinion.

Note that I am not the same person as Harmonysoft (apparently Michael Haephrati, the program's author); I was looking for info on the program and found the sh*tstorm. :-) And on that note, it looks like he wants to appeal his block, but doesn't seem to know how. (He put his appeal on his talk page underneath the block notice.) -- Erik Siers (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

SPA for promotion

Hi Orangemike,

I just saw your blocking Eseschool and started wondering if I've been handling this sort of thing in the most efficient way. For example Freshpet400 seems like a similar situation. I warned the user with 'uw-coi' but at least initially it doesn't seem to have any effect. I guess I should also use 'uw-spamname' but should I also list them somewhere or what? Cheers, A13ean (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a whole range of approaches, depending on the poster's behavior. We don't block a username like JoeAtMicrosoft for the username, even if he edits Microsoft; we wait until it becomes clear he's only here for COI edits. If a name is basically that of a subject, then it's a "role account" and can be blocked for that alone, using {{softerblock}} if they are not being spammy, or a full-blown {{spamuserblock}} if they are. If they have a Cause To Advance, but don't seem actually malevolent in intent, there's also the {{causeblock}} created at my suggestion a while back: a smidgen firmer than a softerblock, but less blunt than a spamuserblock. If you are cautious in using the tools, some folks may deem you a little naive; but there's no harm done in most cases in making sure you're not committing an injustice. Some folks, of course, are shameless and arrogant, and respond to nothing short of a clue-by-4 whupside the head; but some are merely clueless, young, or coming from different cultural assumptions. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so as a non-admin it sounds like I should probably just uw template and maybe list at COI/N, or would RFAA be better in general? Thanks A13ean (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Template, in hopes of opening an actual discussion; post any obvious COI at COI/N, any obvious name problem at UAA. Tag the article as appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

CSXNS011--delete a revision in an article...

Hi Orangemike:

thank you for your comments to my query on the track device for rail. The reason I want to delete revision is I did not log-in on two(2) of my revisions. ...so my IP address is out there in the general public. I am uncomfortable with this...

I am not trying to delete any revesion per se. I just am concerned for privacy issues. u can leave may revisions. But is there way to HIDE my IP address.

Sorry...I am new at this. Thanks again, CSXNS011 (it is only one(1) article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSXNS011 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Erycom

It's the name of a person, so you may want to edit the message you added: "In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy" links to WP:ORGNAME, which is only about use of company, group or product names as usernames. If the user is not the subject of the page created (e.g. is someone who represents him) the username may still be inappropriate, but clarification is needed and a different section of policy would be used. Peter E. James (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's apparently not a real name, but a brand name that somebody performs under; but according to the deleted talk page of the article Erycom, this person claims not to be "DJ Erycom"; so it's all pretty unclear. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lists of fraternity chapters

Hi. I've just started a discussion regarding the notability of the lists of fraternity chapters. I notice that you recently proposed that these lists should be put up for deletion. Did you follow up your proposal? If so, what was the outcome? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Orange Mike help? Confused Alverno Student

Okay, So I'm in the process of uploading a video to wikipedia, or trying...I watched the you-tube tutorial from light camera wiki...following the steps as recommended, but I'm stuck. I'm to the part where I need to go under gadgets and click user interface gadgets (but I don't have this as an option under gadgets), what do I do now?

Lauren MissArtDriver (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Art Pope

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mississippi Democrats

I see you've been in and out of the Mississippi Democrats page. Before I have to turn in my progress report on the page for my class, I wanted to add the seal for the Mississippi Democrats. I have found it online, but don't want to overstep copyrights. Is there a way I can't find it? It doesn't seem like it is in the Wikimedia database. Masuhi (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's what you call a non-free use. You need to upload it yourself, being careful to follow the policies and procedures outlined at WP:Logos. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thanksgiving

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

block User:MontDor Creative Agency

i tend to prefer the DGG method of honey, rather than vinegar, towards coi editors. you do of course understand that you have assumed bad faith on the part of the new editor. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've downgraded to a {{softerblock}} instead at your gentle suggestion, which I appreciate. For me it's extremely hard to assume good faith when the very name of the account implies that they are an ad/PR agency. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you, that's greatly to your credit. unlike most of the other corporate accounts, this article at least has a shred of "non-promotionalism". although it is dancing at the neologism as promotion edge. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

UPSU Radio

02:12, 8 December 2011 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "Upsuradio" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

Do you think considering the last edit was approx 2mins earlier and it had only been created 20mins earlier, as a page clearly under active development it would have been more appropriate to leave a message in the talk on the page rather than deleting it?

Scratchedguitar (talk)

It was about a campus internet radio station; no assertion or evidence of notability. Speedy delete category A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to leave it as is, that's fine, would you at least explain to be how I get the source back? I know it didn't look like much I've very new to this and would at least like to be able to work on it until such time as I feel it would pass A7 (and any other deletion policies as applicable) from within our own wiki.

EDIT: I've now worked out how to add a 'work in progress' page to my own account, I'm aware as an admin you can view deleted pages, if you could paste the source into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scratchedguitar/Upsuradio it would be very much appreciated Scratchedguitar (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Scratchedguitar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Done; but as a veteran of campus radio myself, I don't see why on earth you are kidding yourself that this is a notable topic in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2011 in LGBT rights

Responding to RFCs

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

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011 in LGBT rights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

mindfulness

hi there orange mike, I have encountered this issue with people before, regarding the difference between heartfulness and mindfulness. I would request that you let it be, and allow other people to read it . regards Benjaminw w (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to take this up on Talk:Mindfulness then. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

NB the recent addition (and reversion by me) of what appears to be a spamlink to http://www.heartmath.co . – ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South Asia

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Longest Word Help

At longest word#Esperanto I've been trying to create an example of a long Esperanto word. However, I'm not sure of the meaning of the one that's there now, and I thought I'd call on someone with a better knowledge of the language such as you. Will you please create a better one or correct my meaning? I hope it's not too much trouble. Interchangeable|talk to me 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Your contributions make it look a lot better. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Hello Orangemike. I have a question about an image copyright. I've decided to go to you rather than going to WP:MCQ. I want to upload this media file to Wikimedia Commons. It says the image is from the Virginia State Police. I want to verify that it is indeed copyrighted and also to know if it qualifies for fair-use under {{Non-free mugshot}}. Thanks in advance. -- Luke (Talk) 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a big fat copyright notice on the page where the photo is displayed; and the Virginia State Police website has a banner stating "All rights reserved, Virginia Department of State Police". As to non-free mugshot: I have always felt that was one of the iffier non-free templates, but it would seem to apply here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

african identity

You deleted a user page version of african identity, I think thats kinda bad form. The article might never have made it out in the real world due to WP:ALBUM, and certainly possible he has WP:COI issues, but to delete it outright semms a bit harsh to me, when its not a gross BLP violation or anything that causes liability. especially when it was already deleted, and moved to userspace for him to improve, today, by another admin. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who originally PRODed African Identity, I have to agree. You should have at least taken it up with the admin who userfied it before unilaterally deleting it again. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Good points, both of you; done. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it! While I'm rather dubious it'll manage to meet WP:MUSIC's notability requirements in the end, the user seemed willing to make a good faith effort to improve it and was made aware of its current probelms, so we might as well give him a chance to work on it. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. Group hug! Gaijin42 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

James Wickstrom

Thank you for your edits and the clarification. – RVJ (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

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

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Question; rarebit

↗⁀↘‿ ↗⁀↘‿↗⁀↘‿ ↗⁀↘

Hello Orangemike. First off, thanks for all you do here. Not sure if rarebit is up your alley, but I thought I'd share. I'm trying to find more information about a PR company that creates Wikipedia articles for its clients [9] and saw that you deleted a couple articles back in October that seemed related, Kimberly Jessy and Steve Skyler. I was wondering if you were aware of any similar articles or know whether there's any centralized discussion for this. Cheers. Gobonobo T C 17:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a proud Celt (Scots-Irish, married to a Manxwoman) and a Wisconsinite; how could I turn down a rarebit? As to the articles: beginning October 1, 2011, User:Starpreneurgoddess created Kim Bowles, Kimberly J. Bowles and Kimberly Jessy (all the same person); Francisco San Martin; and Steve Skyler. All were obscure "celebrities"; all were deleted. By October 21, our "goddess" (whom I suspect of actually being Kimberly herself) had quit editing, after brutes like User:Fastily, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:Qwyrxian refused to do anything about mean old me "wikistalking" her and deleting her articles about major celebrities whose claims to fame including being Ms. Petite California, or the Golden Power Ranger on Nickolodean [sic]]! The copywriting of her versions was too incompetent, I believe, to reflect a professional spammer. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, It's good to know I'm not alone in my appreciation of rarebit. Thank you for filling in the blanks on those contributions. I've a feeling that there's more to be found, so off to the hunt. Gobonobo ^{T C} 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire

Responding to RFCs

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

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Paddy atkinson

You are mentioned at User talk:Paddy atkinson#Help me and may wish to comment. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel

Hi there, Mike. I see that you've placed a COI tag on the current Cracker Barrel article, which I recently researched, rewrote, and for which I sought community consensus to replace (see Talk). I am aware of your dislike of COI engagement of Wikipedia articles, and I understand why you feel this way, but I strongly believe the template is not appropriate here.

Regarding the template's message: Does this article require cleanup? I think not: in fact, I am the one who cleaned it up. Does it have problems with POV? I have made every effort to be careful in this regard, and explained my proposed changes to the article, which were reviewed, approved and moved by an uninvolved editor from WikiProject Food and drink. I'd like you to consider the "before" version of this article with the "after"; I think a neutral reviewer would agree my version is far better than what was there before.

I respect that you may disagree with some details—and I see that you have made some changes in the "Diversity and discrimination claims" section. I'm not sure I agree with their substance, but you'll see I've left them stand, because I think that requires further discussion. And please note that there is actually more discussion of this topic in the current version than there was before.

The purpose of this message is to request that you change your mind about the tag, and I hope you will do so. If you disagree or do not respond, I will again seek community consensus to resolve the matter. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike. You were mentioned at COIN regarding this article. Thought you might want to know. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)