This is an archive of past discussions about User:Orangemike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Orangemike, I was editing the BW Group's page and you posted something on my user page that I saw in my email but couldn't see when I clicked on it. I'm not an employee although I did work there once a long time ago. The sources I referenced are the company's websites, a commemorative book published by Bergesen and another by World-Wide Shipping more than a decade ago and the company's quarterly magazine which is sent out to anyone on its mailing list (I am on the mailing list). I also referenced some news websites. I was trying to help an ex-colleague who was too biased in his editing. I thought as a non-employee who isn't going to receive any financial benefit I would be considered more neutral and not having any conflict of interest. Besides, I found it a pity that information about the company that once owned the world's biggest fleet and the company that was once Norway's biggest is not easily available online. Could you tell me where I went wrong and how I may contribute to the article in an acceptable manner? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celia Tais (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I posted something on your talk page based on a misreading of your edit history (that's what I get for editing at 4:00 a.m.). I deleted it completely, as it would mislead readers into thinking more poorly of you and your editing history than you deserve.
The company's own websites, its magazine, and a commemorative book published with its approval all run into the same problem: these are basically self-published sources, which are notoriously problematic both for dubious reliability and for lack of the requisite neutral point-of-view. --Orange Mike | Talk00:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand that the magazines, websites and commemorative books will be inclined towards the company. However, I believe I included mostly factual details such as when the former chairman stepped down and when a new CEO joined, who leads which segment in the company and what each segment is responsible for. This sort of information I mostly gathered from the official websites and the magazines. I am unsure where else one can find more definitive information. Could you tell me how I could present such information in a more substantiated and neutral manner? Is it better if I back up some of the company's claims with sources such as Reuters and Bloomberg as well? When I looked at the Maersk Wikipedia page I noticed some of the information used is also taken from its websites and annual reports and hence assumed that such sources would be considered reliable for this type of information. I apologise for not thinking of referencing external sources. Details about the history of World-Wide are also repeated in the books Y.K. Pao, My Father by Anna Pao and First sea lord: the life and work of Sir Y.K. Pao by Robin Hutcheon. These are published by Hong Kong University Press and Chinese University Press. Are these considered more reliable? I'm sorry that my main source of information for the history of Bergesen comes from the self-published book marking the end of the company as I do not speak Norwegian. I would try to find other sources to back up what was written in the book. I do hope someone fluent in Norwegian would be able to add to what I've already written so I would like to know if that component is in danger of deletion and if so, is there anything I can do to reduce the risk? Thank you so much!Celia Tais (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi there. I think you made a mistake here, deleting an article that I had already declined to delete. Regardless of the fact that it did not meet A7, I think it's important to respect other admin's decisions to avoid WP:ADMINSHOPping. If you disagree with my decision, please use another venue instead. Regards SoWhy12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:SamuelHaleWisconsin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
vi ricevas tiun ĉi mesaĝon, ĉar vi registriĝis kiel tradukisto de la lingvo Orangemike ĉe Wikidata.
La paĝo Wikidata:Glossary estas tradukpreta. Vi povas traduki ĝin ĉe:
Dear translator!
Page "Wikidata:Glossary" was updated and reorganized. This page is very important for understanding Wikidata.
Please check and update your translations ASAP!
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
As you know, I am the individual that continually edited the social justice page, i will admit, the first two edits WERE vandalism, however, my last edit i considered helpful as an assistance to anybody searching the term for it's common online insult form, I feel as though it was rather neutral and non partisan.
Perhaps you could tell me exactly why my final edit was considered 'Not Neutral', and i will perhaps try to re-make my edit with your permission.OrthoDemoExpert (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Your last edit was full of crap about " individuals on the regressive left whom take social justice to the extreme, and instead of wanting balance wishing for rights to be taken away from the 'majority', typically being cis-gendered white males", which is the kind of nonsense spread by the alt-right and so-called "men's rights advocates". The language was partisan and biased; the assertions false and unsourced. --Orange Mike | Talk02:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Orangemike is being more patient than I would have been given your first few edits. Do anything of the sort again and you will have your editing privileges removed. Acroterion(talk)02:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
vi ricevas tiun ĉi mesaĝon, ĉar vi registriĝis kiel tradukisto de la lingvo Orangemike ĉe Wikidata.
La paĝo Wikidata:Wiktionary/Sitelinks estas tradukpreta. Vi povas traduki ĝin ĉe:
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. At User talk:S.dormandy, the editor doesn't seem to be making much progress in contacting info-enwikimedia.org to self-identify - it looks like they've given him a pro-forma reply to contact the blocking admin (which is you). Any idea what he should do next? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Orange Mike, I'm looking for some help on this article, which I was reviweing. It is a amateur side and an amateur league, which clearly doesn't meet the notability standards for WP, for plain WP:NFOOTBALL, yet this article has been votes a keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobacco Road FC because of the large number of soccer fans asserts it has some coverage without any verifiable sources being applied. It doesn't seem right. scope_creep (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
I'd say "no problem" except that the poster says he or she is Oakland House Press. She or he is not that press: she or he is a human being who owns and/or runs that press, but chooses not to tell us who he or she is. Still, it seems to me that we need to AGF here. --Orange Mike | Talk22:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think the block template left here may not be the one intended. The username implies shared use but doesn't really match the description in the template. Home Lander (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WT:Notability (organizations and companies) where the editing history of Banc de Binary has been made an issue; I think this was also mentioned on Jimbo's page. The article was deleted by you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc de Binary in Feb. 2013, but it was recreated soon afterward and survived some additional AfDs. There was news coverage of the article by several organizations as mentioned on its talk page. So I want to have access to see if/how badly Wikipedia let down any potential investors who checked the page at the time, among other reasons. Ideally I would like to see the old revisions simply show up on the article history, but if another page is needed, I think it should be a subpage like Talk:Banc de Binary/Deleted version or something general like that, rather than just be a user subpage for me (since I wouldn't continue working on that text). Thanks! Wnt (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I really appreciate this, but ... I still don't see an article history. So I don't know when the "investor advisories" were added -- were they up for most of the 3 years (I am told) that this version existed before deletion, or did they only get added right around the time of deletion? Sorry to be a pain. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, before we get into researching eyewitness accounts, it would be best to see if the history can be found. I mean, technically the undeleted draft may even be a copyvio if the CC-by required attribution can't be recovered. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a live article now at Banc De Binary, with revisions going back to 3 May 2013. About seven deleted revisions exist, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't be restored to the history. Unless User:Orangemike objects, I think someone could ask for the older revisions to be restored at WP:Requests for history merge. At first glance there is not a copyright problem with these revisions (there is a message about an OTRS ticket at Talk:Banc De Binary). EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Some people at WP:VPT took care of this, moving the draft from the userspace of the neutral editor who first put up the notability tag and some sour notes, so now you can read it all at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc de Binary. Orangemike himself was pinged about this so I didn't think to update about it here; I forgot other people might be reading. Wnt (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I see that you reverted my edit to Dice.com, where I bolded the parent company, DHI Group. I did that because I found the Dice.com article while looking for information about the DHI Group. They are a provider of employment data, now available from the St. Louis Fed, and I wanted to know who they are. I think Wikipedia should have an article about them. But what we have is this article, which is about the DHI Group as well as Dice.com. For example, see the section Dice.com#Acquisitions_by_DHI_Group. So I fixed the redirect, added the hatnote, and bolded their name. But according to your edit summary, this was a violation of the MOS. Can you tell me, exactly what policy I was violating there? According to WP:OTHERNAMES, alternative names for the topic should be mentioned, and the usual practice is to bold them. No?
Anyway, when an edit of mine is reverted, I get a little red notification when I log on to Wikipedia to tell me so. As you can imagine, this is always irritating. Especially in this case, after I had spent 30 minutes so that people looking for information about the DHI Group can find it instead of being sent to the article on the Danish software company. Wondering if you think of things like that when you revert other editors' edits? – Margin1522 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
OTHERNAMES would only have applied if the article was about DHI rather than dice.com. Since the two are different subjects, it does not. I did not doubt your good faith, and am sorry you were irritated by the notification. --Orange Mike | Talk05:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, Dice Holdings and DHI Group both redirect to Dice.com, and to many people (like the author of our article on SourceForge) they must seem like the same entity. At least related enough to share an article. But it you don't see it that way, fine. I've quit insisting about these things. Thanks for the apology. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Requesting to open editing "World Certification Institute"
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am trying to add in information regarding World Certification Institute but it was locked. Could you help me out on this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wci03 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
For years now, you have been trying to publicize the WCI. This article has been blocked from creation due to the repeated creation of blatant promotional content, which also contained significant copyright violations in whole and in part from the organization's website. Since your username also clearly belongs to the WCI, your account has also been blocked as a promotional username. --Orange Mike | Talk14:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Jay Dillon Rare Books
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I very deliberately declined to block User:Jay Dillon Rare Books, as can be seen from the username warning on user talk:Jay Dillon Rare Books and from my edit on WP:UAA when the name was reported. I did this because although the user name is a technical violation, the user had made constructive edits, and had not made any promotional edits. I did this in accord with Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames whaich says, in relevant part If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to encourage them to create a new account with a different username. If you want, you can use the {{subst:uw-username}}, {{subst:uw-uall}} or {{subst:uw-coi-username}} template for this.
I request that you undo your block, and I suggest that in future such cases you consult with the admin who declined a UAA report. I also note that your Block log mentioned "promotional edits" but unless I have missed something, all edits by User:Jay Dillon Rare Books were constructive and none were in any way promotional. Why then did you use this block reason? we have a pre-filled reason for a promotional name without promotional edits, after all. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs14:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The caption was arguably promotional, but also gave the source of the copy, indeed it is quite possibly required for proper attribution. A ment mention of the name of a business hardly seems a big fat gratuitous advert. I repeat my request. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Aplogize to you
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Orange Mike I'm sorry I was saying the same again But I'm not going to do that again. but you are a wonderful blogger and you where contenstant on win ben stein's money I didn't know you where a contenstant but you won $2,000. Well you will continue to do great things just let love rule and may the good lord Jesus Christ Bless You and Keep you. Because he is our lord and Saviour. Have a good day. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:DD3D:3777:CBFB:F4F7 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You are being reverted because you are inserting promotional language taken from the subject's own website. You may euphemize it as "corporate messaging"; we call it promotion, and it is strictly forbidden here. We don't give a darn what the NPSL says about itself; we want to know what impartial third-party sources such as magazines and newspapers have to say about it. --Orange Mike | Talk22:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Requesting permission to reinstate musician page with "credible indication of importance"
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
On September 2, I was attempting to create and edit a pertinent musician page for Novarium (band). However, I prematurely posted it before adding relevant and credible information. As I was editing this information, the page was deleted. I would request the capability of finishing this page before it is examined for lack of credible indications of importance. Thank you. User:mdean13 (talk)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Mike the article AOK Life article has been created and deleted three times in the last week, with two of those instances being minutes apart. Could you throw down a week's worth of salt?--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated Tahirih Justice Center for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are being notified because you participated in a discussion about the article at NPOVN. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Please help. Caught in Catch 22/Endless loop
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You stated "the account has been used for advertising or promotion."
Response: The user said they were going to close the account and create a new one at about 10p Pacific last night...people have to sleep.
"advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service," this is clearly not the case with calfree.
"includes Public Relations". PR is not allowed on Wikipedia? How many pages do I have to cite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_California
Yes California sponsored by the Russian KGB and full of propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilead_Sciences
Gilead has a section about "Prospects for the Future". If this is not PR, I am not sure what is.
I respectfully submit that your interpretation of PR is inconsistent and favors bigger companies that can simply throw people at the problem and come up with a word salad that slips through scrutiny. Meanwhile you filter out small non-profits who are notable and volunteer run (i.e. don't have a paid PR department).
I really don't want to waste hours editing and then getting blocked in an infinite loop. Can you provide recommendations on how to proceed?
Stevegon (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to editathon in Milwaukee on Sept 11
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Orangemike,
I found the Wikipedia article on Evans Wadongo, which had a lot of details in the text and only few references. I tried to find more references and added them to the article. I also converted references and added some links to other Wikipedia articles. Two days ago you deleted all the references and links I had added. Your reason was: revert to less promotional version. Please explain why African references, the links to other Wikipedia articles and the converted references made the Wadongo article promotional. I think that the text of the article could be promotional, but I didn't change any text.--Ecangola (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Ecangola the answer to your question is found in WP:RS. Anonymous and non-expert blogs or online news aggregators (?) like biznisafrica.com are one of the inadmissible sources you used, we call that a self-published source absent evidence to the contrary. A good rule of thumb is if the source doesn't have a Wikipedia article, it's probably going to be challenged as an RS. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT restore the RS sourced items. But promotionalism still is a consideration. "Top 10 heroes" (CNN) may not be the greatest thing to cite in an encyclopedia. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Mike.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hey Mike, I'm trying to make some changes to my Wikipedia page and it said you were willing to help. Just want to make sure I am reading this right in this wasn't a discussion with some other page. I apologize but the Wikipedia stuff is still a little confusing to me. Hope you have a great day Astevens502 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I still haven't figured out what article we are talking about. I cannot repeat often enough: there is no "my Wikipedia page" and no "my profile on Wikipedia". If there is an article about you (whoever you are), it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, not to you. I see no evidence that you have edited the talk page of any article. Have I missed something? --Orange Mike | Talk02:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Companies can have policies that are political in nature. GoFundMe does that. You may agree with those politics or not. I did not voice an opinion. I stated a fact.
But if you deny that those policies exist, then you are presenting GoFundMe as something that it is not. It might be that you really do doubt the reliability of my sources. However, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Why should people not be informed that the charity they give to is involved in things not popularly known of, whether they agree with those things or not? If you know and do nothing, then you have qualified wikipedia as a liar.
Probably you have an opinion for or against GoFundMe's politics as there is no other reason I know of that one would wish to hide this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audeamus42 (talk • contribs)
1) You can't post stuff without reliable sources, and crusader websites don't qualify.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
see [1]. The article has been recreated bit I can't find the earlier versions to decide if it should be deleted as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD. Thanks, Doug Wellertalk10:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Orangemike,
My entry was recently marked as an article for deletion. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider possible deletion of the entry on Pete Bevacqua.
You suggested that he is a non-notable executive of sports organization. He is the CEO of PGA of America. Can you please tell me what level of notability is required? Also, I believe the references are suitable as they cite where the information is from, quoted from etc. I am new to the rules of Wikipedia and I need all the help I can get. Please share your thoughts on what can be done to make this a better article. I worked really hard on it and I would like your input as to how I can fix it.
Thank you.
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Orangemike, you added the comment "article creator admits working with subject to create this article" to its revision history, so I thought it'd be good to give all details on that. In short, I wrote the article myself and on my own, without any influence or anybody knowing it. Before publishing it, I contacted and asked Mike, to whom I have no 'close connections' (at least not closer than common interests and being part of the same general area of the Twittersphere: we subscribe to each other, though his channel is orders of magnitudes bigger and more professional than mine, and we both tend to write about history and politics) if I had made errors or if something was obviously missing. I also told him that if an article goes online the pictures used would have to enter the public domain, as it was the biography of a living person, so he might want to supply these images himself. Mike was, understandably, happy that somebody had written an article on him and said that we might have a few beers next time he came to Germany from the UK, so - I hope that's not yet too personally close, but I would understand if anybody would frown at that.
Content-wise, his answers in two separate mails were very short:
On his current writing: "Books series forthcoming busting misconceptions regarding various historical periods. Pics attached."
On his birthdate and -place: "7th of April, 1980 - Latrobe Valley Hospital, Moe, Victoria, Australia."
So these two sentences and his two photos are all content he ever provided, and apart from the term "Latrobe Valley Hospital" which didn't make it into the article, all of that info was already available on the web before.
Hope that clears things up as to Mike's influence on the 'finished product'. Of course, the article needs to be factual and unbiased, so I welcome any review of and work on it by others. Just thought it might be good to mention this beforehand, as I thought the comment in the revision history could be misread as if basically Mike had created his own article, which is simply not the case ;) (No malicious intent implied *handshake* )
EDIT: Additional note - this is a case where I'd indeed welcome your famous "helping hand", Mike ^^ Would be happy if we could talk a bit, especially because I've only been back on Wikipedia for a couple of months now after first working on a couple of articles in 2007. So I'm definitely not up to snuff on writing & editing workflows and etiquette here. I also happen to agree with your deletionist approach, but would still argue the article in question is at least important enough to exist (the vandalism that took place on its very first day might be a tipoff to that), even if it gets rewritten from the first line on by somebody else.
Please excuse my sometimes wobbly English - as mentioned, I'm German ^^
You might want to post this same information about how the article came to be, on the talk page of the article. I'll be glad to help; but be forewarned, my ethics require me to watch myself especially carefully when editing articles about people with whom I agree so fiercely as I do Stuchbery. Don't worry about the language:
Thanks so much, Mike :) What a nice message.
So I posted the info above on the talk page of the article, as you suggested. I only modified a couple of words and added the following paragraph:
...so I welcome any review of and work on it by others, even if it means altering it completely. To me, it is questionable whether many of Anarcho-authoritarian's latest revisions indeed improved it.
I am also very much for removing minor articles. If the Wiki editors truly believe that this article is of too little note, I'm very much for removing it. The cyberattacks leveled at it from day one may show the editors, however, that there are people out there with an interest to take it down. Why? Because people like Stuchbery consistently work to debunk the falsified white-supremacist and ethno-nationalist accounts of history these people are promoting. Stuchbery is not a huge public persona, I agree, but it should be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. He has a lot of reach, and there is a reason why academic historians point out how important his work is, especially seeing the recent surge of white supremacist rhetoric and history revisionism. The Paul Joseph Watsons and Richard B. Spencers of the world have their Wikipedia articles - they are considered noteworthy enough for the enormous reach of their message of "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and "ethnically homogenous societies of the antiquity" through media like Infowars or The Alex Jones Show - but if somebody gets popular for constantly working to counteract such misinformation, he is, in the words of Anarcho-authoritarian, an "intermittent middle school supply teacher", or, according to the opinion of an IP-only-author (2601:982:4201:D40:D5D3:6C8D:F3:620A), who appeared VERY timely just three hours after Anarcho-authoritarian's huge clear-cutting and setting of a AfD template, "completely removed from the greater public debate sphere" (newspapers like The Independent and The Guardian are apparently too removed from the public debate) and "This article should be deleted.".
As that paragraph suggests, I'm not convinced that the most recent changes around this article have been for the better. At least some of it (from multiple users) is most likely just an extension of the cyber harrassment directed at Mike Stuchbery through other channels. It seems to me very likely that we are seeing an attempt to basically bully the article out of Wikipedia to marginalize an inconvenient debunker, something that I thought might happen before I even started writing the article. Which is why I kept notifications on and have been keeping a close eye on it.
I think you already got my gist, but just to be sure, let me reiterate: I have *nothing* against modifications of the article, especially if it brings it closer to Wikipedia's quality standards, or if it gets taken down entirely after reliable & experienced people in the Wiki community gave it a thorough review and consider it not important enough. I think the iterative writing process, the sometimes very strict review process and the fact that no one "owns" an article are among Wikipedia's greatest strengths. So the only thing I would be against would be if far-right bullies achieve their objective, which might be what is going on here. (Below my signature I attached a couple of comments and screenshots that, apart from the obvious cases of vandalism, might indicate something fishy is going on.)
So it's a bit of a delicate topic. I'd like to do my part in that process. Any advice on how (and if) I should proceed would be very welcome :) (I actually got a LOT more questions, but I'm already testing your patience.)
Also, Anarcho-authoritarian left this on my talk page, some of which I can see where he is coming from (I AM an inexperienced writer, no doubt about that), but most of which I just can't agree with. If anything, I'd say his edits and speech are often more biased than my original text:
http://www.directupload.net/file/d/4860/xfznizsc_jpg.htm
So the horse has bolted, the article on Mike Stuchbery was deleted ^^ But my questions still remain. I'd be interested in talking more to you about this case and learning. Best, Benedict VividImpression (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
VividImpression I'm rather concerned that you think I'm either sockpuppeting (from the other side of the world) or trying to get meatpuppets, especially as I put the notice on the deletion discussion warning potential meatpuppets after Ian Miles Cheong publicised the deletion request. The consensus, taken part by several established editors among IP/newbie accounts, was that this person is not notable. There is no consensus to silence this person, who yields 158 results on Google News, has a fraction over a thousand YouTube views and makes far below minimum wage on Patreon. As you can see, those 158 results stretch back three years and most are about the Twitter argument with Watson. But if having a few thousand retweets is a sign of notability, we need to make an entire WikiProject for this guy.
On your Twitter and on this talk page, you have said that Stuchbery deserves a page because he fights fake news and you find the views of Watson and Spencer to be abhorrent. This is false equivalence and it's WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As I have said before, when Watson was just mumbling about chemtrails for a few thousand people ten years ago, the article on him was deleted many times for lack of notability. After extended coverage during the US election, it was permitted to remain. Although I agree he is borderline notable and I would not argue the case if someone nominated that article for deletion. Wikipedia is not a PR catalogue, having an article on Watson does not mean the site endorses him any more than it endorses Kim Jong-un or Donald Trump. I'm particularly concerned about your neutrality as you leave this message on Talk:Stephen Hicks accusing it of being a fan piece because you don't agree with him, before making an article like that on Stuchbery. I am not saying you in particular are one of these people, but it has been shown that Twitter pulls people into an echo chamber of their own views, where they may believe minor figures are more important than they actually are, just because they agree with them Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition, in the page history (now deleted) I told Daddy997rs that he was being unhelpful by trying to replace biased content with content biased in the other direction, and removed several other WP:BLP violations later on. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Anarcho-authoritarian, as often, I disagree on many individual points, but that was indeed a good piece of writing; thank you for putting the time and effort into it. I assume that we would get much better along in real life than in the much more anonymous cyberspace because we're coming from the same place.
See, as you may have surmised from my abstaining from further edits to the article after initial cleanup, from the fact that I usually react with a couple of days of delay, and from my last messages to OrangeMike, this is hardly a life-or-death matter to me. It was an article I wrote on a person I consider important enough to current issues to have a central point of reference for looking up biographical data and details of occupation, and that I trusted Wikipedia to improve on further, because, flawed as they may be, in general Wikipedia's procedures work pretty well at bringing the more relevant and informative content to the forefront.
It might help to point out that I really have no beef with you. We didn't know each other yet when you first commented on my user talk page, so that complicated things for both of us. But seeing your comments about flights to Pennsylvania and meat & sock puppets, I understand that you took my comments to mean that I see you basically as a mouthpiece for the alt-right, which I did and do not. I think you are doing your job. When I said, "Something fishy might be going on" and that the edits were "VERY timely", that referred to the alt-right itself, because this is something I have experience with, something that isn't uncommon at all for people who deal with them regularly. I don't know how up to date you are on the alt-right, but you read the section on cyber harassment in the Stuchbery article, so you probably have a general idea of how cyberattacks at critics of them are orchestrated. In short, they create lists of people they deem obstacles or gadflies and then bully them wherever they can with as many people as they can muster, mainly on the web, sometimes offline. There's no big conspiracy there, it's just plain old cyber harassment, similar to what happened at GamerGate where it mainly hit female journalists, but with the political intent even less camouflaged.
As noted in the (now archived) reply on my talk page, I appreciated the work you put into the article, the time you spent on it and the comments you wrote to me. I still do. What I am getting at is: look at how you called my long disclaimer on the article's talk page a "rant" during the deletion discussion (which was probably before you understood that OrangeMike had advised me to post it there), or how you made far-reaching assumptions about my relationship with Stuchbery, my intentions, my going about creating the article, and my political views, while overlooking a lot of details that wouldn't fit with these assumptions. The resulting picture was very distorted, which isn't really what Wikipedia is about, right? I don't even say your inferences were illogical. But maybe you too would agree now that you had your own lens you viewed the whole procedure through from the word go, and that it wasn't a neutral or particularly helping one. See, I'm not for handling people with kiddy gloves, but let's entertain the notion for a second that your first message to me had been (in a nutshell): "I saw the article you posted. I think it's not up to Wikipedia's standards, it might even not be significant enough to remain online. Could we talk about it?" Things probably would have gone very differently, and saved time, effort & stress for everyone involved. I might’ve even taken down the article myself, depending on the circumstances (I disagree on many of the details, I still find it significant, however looking at it from an outside view my main objection would have been a possible WP:BLP1E).
But again, I'm not asserting blame. After all, you DID reach out, and all your efforts attest that Wikipedia's quality is your main concern. So I’m with you on that. This might have been a situation with no ideal outcome seeing how problematic the setup was. When you have strangers interacting on a relatively anonymous website on sensitive issues pertaining to often abused areas of their respective fields of work, it's an explosive mix. From your perspective it probably looked like another glowing endorsement by a teenager of their favorite boy band member, of which you had already seen a thousand. At least that's what I suppose Wiki editors are often confronted with, it's a site where everybody can edit, and on the internet, 'everybody' includes millions of horrible and/or incompetent people. So I don't envy you for that position.
Now, compare my perspective: Both academically and in private I'm following the rise of the alt-right and the public echo to it, a very pertinent and sensitive issue. Many high-profile academics and educators chime in, but more than them (they already get the attention) I'm interested in the smaller voices, those that are easier marginalized but are still significant. One of them, whom I consider rather prominent in his positioning among UK intellectuals who continue to speak out against public misinformation, has no Wikipedia article. If people look him up, they will find only disparate info, or worse, they will find only the smear articles published on right-wing blogs.
So I deliberate if he is important enough for Wikipedia and end up on the yes side. I sit down to write one, not the be-all, end-all wisdom on the man, but I try to hit all significant beats, both for the subject's sake and so that the article doesn't end up as a stub like the one on the Watching-Eye Effect I wrote before. I'm out of the loop with Wikipedia at that point, but I read up on as many as the latest policies and recommended formatting as possible. As he is a living person who is also in immediate reach I ask the subject to provide biographical info I'm not privy to, the same way I would if I wrote, say, an article on a fellow academic researcher. I see the issue of writing both on a living person and on somebody you have at least intermittent contact with, so I try to find a way to submit the article with an additional note for review before publication, but find none. So instead I publish the article and disclose that I talked to the subject (that leads to OrangeMike putting the POI disclaimer in the article). I disclose all relevant info pertaining to the creation of the text and enter the article in the peer review list. As I expect the cyber harassment the subject encountered to quickly reach the Wiki article, I keep notifications on. Lo and behold, it takes only a few hours for the trolls to vandalize it, but this is an area Wikipedia is really good at: the vandalism is reverted time and time again, and some editors make good contributions.
Then one day I'm introduced to Anarcho-authoritarian. You edit a lot and leave me a message. Some of the edits seem good to me, some not so much, most of them are cases of "I think we'd need to discuss this further so you see my point". Main problem was that you are making a lot of assumptions and treat them as foregone conclusions - and again, those assumptions may even be totally reasonable if you encountered many trolls of that kind here on Wikipedia over the years. For me, an option would have been to start an edit war (which doesn't help anyone) or a twenty page discussion where I go through every detail of the text with you. But I don't see it as 'my' article anyway, so I'm actually looking forward to seeing what others make out of it. Only thing I'm slightly alerted by is the fact that you put an AfD notice in there and that it seems less motivated by the notability of the subject, but more by allegations that the subject was very close or identical to the author, and other serious allegations pertaining to the creation of the text. So I try to address those and go my way. In the meantime, the AfD discussion is running and I read from you a series of "gotcha!" comments, all I could do in reaction to was either shake my head or shrug and say "Yes, as I said all along". What I'm reflecting on during these days is: Am I dealing with somebody who puts just a bit too much zeal into his work, somebody whom, were we characters in a movie, the audience would shout at 'You two are the good guys, you should work together', or with someone who has an axe to grind? Well, I'm very happy that the longer one knows you the more constructive the talking gets, it's actually quite pleasant talking to you. However let me continue with the postmortem because niceties are nice, but the nasties are what needs to be cleared up.
For all the times Wikipedia:BLP was quoted in this case, a couple of times I felt like the people quoting it missed its essence themselves: "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity […] Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
This is something I was very aware of, which is why I tried to write a factual and informative article, the same I would for any other subject I write on. You can argue I failed at that and that it was biased as hell, that’s fair enough. Personally, I would compare phrasings you incriminated with similar phrasings from my (or others') academic papers on other topics, and I'd assume you would concede that you read more into them than was there. On the other hand, there certainly was room for improvement and I was looking forward to it. Our individual conduct in light of the BLP policy itself is what I am getting at here: I wrote the article explicitly taking the BLP policy to heart, putting additional effort into it tracking some facts down, and disclosing all relevant info about myself and the writing of the article to avoid any harm. And all in all, the other Wiki editors followed the same policy. But it was still handled in a way that we now have screenshots of the article with huge POI and AfD templates and juicy comments like 'The Left's favourite historian Mike Stuchbery writes his own Wikipedia article' passed around in alt-right circles, and I think that was neither unavoidable nor just due to me publishing the article in the first place. Worse, it probably wouldn't have happened had I NOT disclosed that I consulted Stuchbery for the article, and that's not how the policy is supposed to work, right? Thus, I think it is fair to point out that some of the other editors' handling of this situation was missing the "high degree of sensitivity" required, did create "sensationalist" and "titillating" claims and that the "exercising of editorial judgment" was not always done considering "the possibility of harm to living subjects", and all that in a case where the article in question already noted that the subject was a victim to cyber harassment. It doesn't matter much that this wasn't intended, the result is the same. A more discrete approach would have been preferable.
I will stop here so the reply does not become too long, but don't take this as a sign that I'm unwilling to discuss other points you mentioned. Also, in case you want my stance on a specific point, always feel free ask for it. As an interim conclusion let me note I hope this ends in us all writing & editing more articles together and in ten years laughing about the regrettable way we first met. Best, Benedict VividImpression (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Merger request
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Traduksciigo: Wikidata:Wikidata in Wikimedia projects
Saluton Orangemike,
vi ricevas tiun ĉi mesaĝon, ĉar vi registriĝis kiel tradukisto de la lingvo Orangemike ĉe Wikidata.
La paĝo Wikidata:Wikidata in Wikimedia projects estas tradukpreta. Vi povas traduki ĝin ĉe:
Request to get the SSENSE page recreated/undeleted
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Orangemike,
SSENSE made a request in 2011 and you had it deleted the same Day, stating G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
We would like to look into having it reinstated.
As we no longer have access to the deleted content, can you help to clarify what part of the page was considered as advertising or promotion?
At this point, 2017, the Company has numerous articles and write-ups to share that were written by third parties and is completely unbiased and non-promotional.
We have also recently submitted a request (may 2017) to the wikipedia Community to have a new page written, but have yet to get any takers.
(talk page watcher) Catherine, would you write the Encyclopedia Brittanica and ask to have an article about yourself? This is also an encyclopedia and we don't do articles on demand. Also you need to get in ToS compliance with declaration of relationship to this company. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I was about to recreate the article for this British rapper which was deleted by you a year ago. However, it says i have to ask for admin request. I am thinking of recreating it using credible references I found. There is also some solid chart history for the rapper.--Rebelheartous (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I second this. She has had 2 big chart hits now and is likely to be searched. I was quite surprised that she didn't have an article. Spiderone09:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
As anybody who's ever seen me in real life Orange Mike at a Chicago Wiki Meet-Up can testify, my attitude towards fashion combines indifference, contempt and ignorance; so I don't often nominate as non-notable in that field. --Orange Mike | Talk01:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that is a mistake; repeated deletions indicate that the subject is not notable. The draft that Inwind points to makes no case for notability, hence no reason to move the draft. If anything, I would question why Inwind is trying to push the subject. Please return protection and let Inwind make a case at RFPP.Chris Troutman (talk)06:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, for me it would depend on if the IP was dynamic or static - and res or biz. Res dynamics I rarely block for more than a week as there's no point. Res statics maybe a year or two. Biz statics however... I could easily see indeffing, but maybe checking up on the IP every couple years. SQLQuery me!01:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Orangemike,
thank you for being kind enough to tell me about the Manual of Style for the site. I was not aware of it previously. I know that your input was a long time ago and it has taken me a while to see it and respond but that time lag reflects the fact that I am not here often. I do not use the site unless I have absolutely no alternative, and I have removed it from my search engine results. That is due to the fact that I have been very rudely jumped on by other editors for having put in my 2 cents worth in order to try to improve the tone of some pages here. I find it disappointing that the Manual does not allow for the traditional honorifics which were always used when I was growing up and in all the years of my education. I was always taught to address someone with Mr, Mrs, Miss, etc, and now today's society is trying to tell me that all my education was wrong. I find that insulting and to me it is a step backwards in the standards that we should live by as a society. I don't criticise you, just the way that things are going these days. It is a sad thing to lose our standards of behaviour. Thank you again for your help.
@Informatus: My religious faith (Quaker) decided centuries ago that honorifics are iniquitous because they are used to establish and maintain social hierarchies; so I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. Wikipedia's reasoning, while not rooted in a religious tenet, is somewhat the same: do we call somebody Mr. So-and-so, Lord So-and-so of Someplacia, His Honor the Right Reverend So-and-so S.J., M.A., LL.D; etc.? We are each born with names, and those remain the core of our identities. This may seem overly egalitarian; but we are American in our origins and to some extent our attitudes. I prefer this system to the vile rules of my Southern childhood, in which (for example) titles like "Mrs." were denied to women of color. --Orange Mike | Talk06:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Precious three years!
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just wondering why you deleted the latest additions to the Cthulhu Mythos article, in case it was a mistake and I should revert. Please let me know. JCvP 16:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The additions consisted of pop-culture trivia (references in South Park episodes) and a lengthy quote from an obscure writer, apparently intended to make said writer sound important. --Orange Mike | Talk23:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Orangemike. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
If you push for the deletion of my article, I will fight it to the end. If you can't do that, what are you going to do? Are you a Trump supporter? Are you going to come to Reno and try to hit me with a 2x4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfsofnv (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
???? What are you smoking? I am a leftist Trump-despiser, and a Quaker (no 2x4s for me). I am also an administrator here, attempting to give you some guidance about the criteria we use for judging the notability of article subjects. --Orange Mike | Talk01:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry for that attack, however I saw what seemed to be a threat to delete articles for both the Mayor and council member at large in the City of Reno, and I was offended.-SFSofNV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfsofnv (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Every article in this encyclopedia is subject to challenge if the challenging party honestly thinks the topic is not suitable for an article here. We have folks who think at least half the articles already extant should probably be cleared out, and others who think we need far more than we have now. I was just pointing out that the present existence of an article does not prove that the topic is notable, merely that somebody wrote an article and nobody has successfully proposed its deletion; it certainly does not constitute a valid argument for the creation of yet another article. --Orange Mike | Talk03:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
-I would like you to stop obstructing the publication of this article just because you can. I am also shocked that you were willing to threaten the Mayor of Reno with deletion of her wikipedia article along with as two of her colleagues. Intimidation does not intimidate me. In the scope of the entire wikiverse, and the entire universe, why does it matter so much whether a city council member has an article about them? If you are conducting this obstruction because you think I am rude or not putting enough effort into this then you need to find a better reason.
-Sfsofnv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfsofnv (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
"Obstructing"? "Threatening"? You don't seem to understand how this process works. I am not sure how much more clearly I can explain this to you than the links which I provided should have done. (You did read them, didn't you?) I am sorry you so badly misperceive my motives and my methods in this matter; it certainly violates our prescription to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. --Orange Mike | Talk18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Tablemaking is the kind of task I have spent my entire computing life avoiding. And IIRC, userboxtop only works if all boxen are of identical size. --Orange Mike | Talk21:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Orangemike. You protected Social democracy back in 2009 with this reason: "anti-Obama IPs keeping adding him to the "Notable Social Democrats" list w/out any sourcing". It's been almost nine years and Obama is no longer president. It had not been protected before. Because of that, I feel like we should try unprotection. Do you want to unprotect it after almost nine years of semi-protection? —MRD2014Talk01:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
My bot account was approved earlier, so it's totally okay to unblock it and safe, but thank you for being proactive and careful
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for being cautious, but I cleared this request already with this Wikipedia administrator and they approved it, as I explained that I am learning the programming skills necessary to soon create my own BOT account. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's a copy and paste of the conversation from my Talk Page. Thank you again.
alt account[edit]
Beauty School DropoutBot (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)
Is this your account? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes and immediately after I requested the Bot account, and I read the specs, I realized I don't yet have the programming skills I will need to utilize a bot account. But if you do approve it, I'll just hold onto it while I learn more. Thank you! Beauty School Dropout (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I was mostly worried that someone might be impersonating you. You don't have to use the account immediately if you decide not to go through with a bot approval request. You could let the account sit dormant for years, and nobody will bother you over it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being concerned and on top of the situation! Beauty School Dropout (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the berries, gift of Selu to humankind. I survive, but wish I had more free time, more money, less age, etc.; in other words, the human condition. Wish I could afford Wikimania, of course. --Orange Mike | Talk18:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Me too. I had a partial scholarship to Montreal – the usual suspects were there and you were missed – but I haven't decided if I'm going to try to get a scholarship for South Africa. That's a looong way from Oklahoma. OTOH, I've never been to Africa and it would be a cool trip. Katietalk21:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am not questioning whether Mia Khalifa is an alumni, although I have not seen any evidence that she attended the school.
The Wikipedia article on Mia Khalifa does not provide any indication that she attended the school. Also according to an article citation (Taylor Wofford (January 6, 2015). "Meet Mia Khalifa, the Lebanese Porn Star Who Sparked a National Controversy". Newsweek. Retrieved January 7, 2015.) Mia Khalifa is not even her real name!
I am also questioning whether she is notable - do we want to make anybody who undresses in public notable?
Okay, multiple issues. If you don't think she's notable, then file an AfD on the article; I'm certainly willing to assume your dubiety is sincere. You yourself have admitted in prior edit summaries that she attended the school, so it's disingenuous now to claim we don't know whether she attended, though a "cite needed" would be appropriate. Until and unless the article is deleted, she should stay in the list. --Orange Mike | Talk20:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I know nothing about her attendance other than what wikipedia editors have reported (which I have taken as good faith edits) and what I have deduced from attempting unsuccessfully to validate her attendance,. Question, doesn't the following from Template:Citation needed apply? -- Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Do not tag it; immediately remove it. This includes material that is doubtful, harmful, or possibly libelous. For some policy about this, see the sections "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and "Burden of evidence" at Wikipedia:Verifiability.
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey orange mike, thank you for all your contributions and work that you do on Wikipedia. In the issue regarding the deletion of the page Sam Alhaje, I will like to talk and address due to that fact that Sam Alhaje is a established actor and celebrity and is not part of small obscure television shows or roles. He is the main actor on 3 prime time television shows in Australia. Has been nominated for one of the countries biggest awards in the industry (Logie). And out of respect your comment about its “push from his agent” is non evident and an assumption. And in the concern regarding to the what "criterion" this person meets of the Australian Actor's page Sam Alhaje and with research and gathering, I honestly think he meets all the criterion. He was a Logie candidate for one of the awards in the TV industry in Australia Logie nomination (along with evidence below from his agent and all his radio interviews, red carpet speech and news paper articles which i believe is sufficient and strong information) and that is due to the fact that he has acquired and has been cast in 3 new television shows and tv series airing in 2018 in which he is the main character "KARIM" in one (concern for welfare which is airing on SBS in Australia, one of Australia's biggest tv networks.) A role on the ABC TV tv series "RAKE" as a supporting actor "DELL" to prestigious actor Richard Roxburgh and Damien Harvey. Another ABC TV brand new comedy as another supporting actor "JAL" in the upcoming show SANDO.( source is his very own agent catherine poulton and the production company Jungle entertainment".. link is http://www.cpmgt.com.au/talent/sam-alhaje/. And has also been on hold for a third session of the successful show that branched him out "here come the habibs". He has also received recognition with the sci fi feature film "hidden peaks" which has just been sold and began distribution in USA,ASIA & Australia with a release date in the first quarter of 2018. he also has just been cast in the new theatre play as the main character for the Parramatta riverside theatre play called "Lakemba". He has also just finalised a commercial where he worked with the fabulous Australian legend Roy Billing for the prestigious bank "Macquarie Bank Group". He has attained a following of over 11.9 thousand followers on instagram. He is a well established actor, public figure, and has attended almost every red carpet with a strong reputation for bringing the "fun" to the carpet. He has been nominated for Logies, and has been shortlisted for AACTA awards. He attends red carpets regularly (https://www.instagram.com/samalhaje/) He has a strong reputation throughout the community as he has worked with Cody Walker, Paul Walkers brother from fast and furious for is charity Reach Out World Wide Charity which was founded by Paul Walker. He is an ambassador for "White ribbon" which aims to stop violence against women. He has also been acknowledged by the Parliament for his support of the Australian Gynaecological Cancer Foundation, the Leukaemia Foundation's World's greatest Shave, the Mark Hughes Foundation for Brain Cancer Research in where he was on the highly rated "today show" on TV going around to the schools and doing live crosses. and the Reach Out World Wide Charity founded by Paul Walker. This is guy is a well established actor in Australia and is relevant in the tv/film and theatre industry. I believe with all this he meets:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
He’s a established actor and celebrity. He has 3 tv shows premiering in 2018.
Thank you orange mike, and I hope I hear back from you regarding this.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi-Categories help the reader navigated through Wikipedia. The editors need to be flexible when adding categories to articles. Being rigid and inflexible concerning categories does not help the readers or Wikipedia. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Message to Orangemike regarding category deletes
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
In response to your objection to my deletion of categories on the Rod Serling page, my apology, I did not know that categories could not be deleted without consensus. I stand corrected. But I ask you, if they cannot be deleted, why then is Ser Amantio di Nicolao allowed to add them indiscriminately and completely without cause or consensus? He has been inserting factually incorrect and irrelevant categories into dozens of articles, most of which have no relation at all to any information given in the article itself. His contributions are random, uninformed, and most often wrong. In many cases they are completely absurd, and greatly detract from the quality of the articles, adding only confusion and misdirection to otherwise accurate pages. I call this vandalism, and my edits were merely an effort to correct such nonsense. A look at his edit history will show an ongoing pattern of abuse and incompetence. I will concern myself no longer with categories, because I am a copy editor, but my reasons and motivations are sound: To protect pages from overzealous and misguided editing. Truth must be primary, even in Cfd. SamJohn2013 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
To use Rod Serling as our example: he was a Jew, who became a Unitarian; both these life experiences may well be reflected in his works and worldview. The same applies to his experience as a U.S. soldier, an experience which tends to reshape a person's entire life even if they never see combat. Your deletions seemed pointless and non-constructive. Now if there are WRONG cats being added, then you need to address that issue on the specific article where they are wrong, and I thank you for your concerns about article accuracy.--Orange Mike | Talk02:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, Orangemike, I can see that we differ philosophically on this issue. My question remains, what purpose is served by these innumerable and completely trivial category additions? Observe the ones that I deleted and tell me of what possible value they could be to a person wanting to learn about Rod Serling. The fact that he was born to Jewish parents is a known fact and is stated clearly in the opening. I have not found any mention of Unitarian Universalists in the article , but if true, would he not have ceased to be a Jew at the moment he joined the Universalists? This could be debated by theologians, but dissecting the fine points of this man's religion is absurd. The point is even more meaningless when he is placed in a category of "Jewish American Male Actors," or "American Jews in the Military." Leaving the question of religion aside, what do you do with "New York State Democrats?" Does Ser Amantio di Nicolao have any source to confirm that Serling was even registered to vote in New York, (as opposed to L.A.), or that he had any connection with the New York State Democratic Party? This is pure, unsourced speculation at its worst. Then I proceed to the categories that are clearly wrong, such as "People from Ithaca, NY," or "People from Binghamton, NY." No one has ever classified Serling as a "Horror Writer," a completely separate genre and one in which he would have been insulted to be placed. No one who has any knowledge of his career could find grounds to call him "an actor." He was a narrator and introducer of his own shows, but appearing as oneself is not acting. Is Alfred Hitchcock thus also to be categorizad as an "actor?" It is false and misleading to classify Rod Serling among "Short Story Writers." Yes, he wrote stories, which were short, for television shows and movies, but placing him in the category does a disservice both to him and to short story writers (authors) who wrote for publication. It is simply wrong.
It would be damage enough if Ser Amantio di Nicolao's personal whims were only being tolerated on this one article, but I have personally seen the damage he has done to dozens of articles. (e.g. Thomas Wolfe, Jack Kerouac, et al.) I have heard from other editors that he has done such harm to hundreds of pages. All I am asking is that he be held to the same editorial standards for categories as the rest of us are for text. What is needed is some sense of restraint and discretion, and respect for our subjects. His changes show clearly in all cases that he has not read the articles he edits, and is working from keywords and scans, while paying no regard at all to the meaning or function of the categories he assigns. This kind of careless and self-serving abuse of editorial privilege is vandalism, just as surely as it would be if a troll were coming though and deleting the word "Jew" every where it appeared.
I know that Wikipedia is barely above Craigslist in its level of tolerance for fools of all kinds. There is no higher editorial authority to which I can appeal to impose order and discipline on a rogue editor. It makes me discouraged and sad, both for myself and for the hundreds of other honest and diligent editors who try every day to help Wikipedia maintain at least some pretense of literary and scholastic integrity. You yourself seem to lay claim to a higher editorial level by your reprimand and overrule of what I have shown to be good-faith and constructive repairs. Thus, I remain just another anonymous editor, stung and disheartened by the demand that I must work with, and accept as an equal, someone like Ser Amantio, an incompetent and malicious debaser of common literary decency and tradition. I step aside, and realize, alas, "'tis too starved an argument for my sword."
SamJohn2013 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Ser Amantio will not respond to queries. Requesting the opening of a RfC on this issue, Do you support? (See related discussion at Dahn talk page.) SamJohn2013 (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi-I started a category: Category: Women mayors of places in Wisconsin. I used wording from the Category: Mayors of places in Wisconsin that you added that mayors of Wisconsin also included village presidents and town chairs. Please look at the Women mayors of places in Wisconsin if there any corrections, additions needed. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Orangemike, hope you are well. You have recently deleted photos that I uploaded, howevere according to Wikipedia I had seven days to explain my rationale ...it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance.... Can't say I am please, because I took some time to crop down the images to low res file and so forth. But I am not upset either since I am learning through trial and errors how to make wiki photos. That being said I think you should have waited seven days as per wikis request, and give me a chance to explain my re-explain my rationale, which I intended to do. The material I putted up there may be invalid but not offensive. Anyways kind regards. Have a great day. Feel free to come to my talk page a give feedback.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings. I assure you I have zero intention of self promotion in any way. That would be merely unprofessional. Though, there's no way to change the username last I checked, is there? ShadarknessOFFICIAL (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I would like to resubmit an article that was deleted entitled "multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs)." I do not have a stake in the content of this page, but understand that it may have come off as promotional in the initial submission. I am new to wikipedia submissions and would be happy to submit a completely neutral version if allowable. Thank you! Compsrhprev (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Compsrhprev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compsrhprev (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, don't stick the acronym into the title of the article; that's against our article-naming conventions. --Orange Mike | Talk04:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You moved this page from DDCS's user page to its current location. This school does not exist. (as far as I can tell) These users have more articles on subjects that don't exist. Did you see The Movement on ABC? I didn't. Nobody has. Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
wikimedia.org to self-identify - it looks like they've given him a pro-forma reply to contact the blocking admin (which is you). Any idea what he should do next? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration
Obituaries
Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
Bureaucrat changes
Done, with future changes hopefully a little easier to see/do. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
