User talk:Orangemike/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Orangemike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Just wanted to say thanks for pointing this out. I'm not sure why I failed to find this page, but I'm grateful to you for helping me help the new user who questioned me about it on my talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info re: the editor's background at Eddings et al. As someone who seems to be knowledgeable about SF, would you take a look at science fiction studies and see if you have any contributions that could improve the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure whether you came across this username at the UAA board, but there two users agreed that this was not a cause for concern at this time, since, despite his edits to the article about the person of the same name, his userpage made it clear that he was not the famous Marc Bulger. WP:REALNAME allows real names if it they engage in unproblematic edits and make it clear they're not themselves the subject of articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wiki something regarding an issue with which you may have been involved (by far, not the priority issue though). Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Uri Aviv, director of the ICON SF Festival. You've edited back my own edit of the ICON Festival article. I read and understood why, but what should I do with the current false and inacurate data that appears in the article? It is misleading and damaging to the event... would you be able to contact me by email to manager[at]icon.org.il and help me on this? I'd like to make sure our wikipedia article is accurate and would really like to know what to do.

Uriaviv (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help improving my page ([ATG Stores]). If there is anything more I can do to improve the quality of it please let me know. Thank you very much. Morgan

Morganeason (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2009 (PST)

Thanks again for all the help!

Morganeason (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2009 (PST)

I appericate your help yesterday. I'm sorry I don't have someone else to turn to but perhaps you can either help me by explaining what I can do further on my article or help me with another editor who appears to have malicous intent. talk and ATG Stores. Perhaps I'm being overly sensative but this seems like a lot of negativity directed from one editor. Thank you for any help you can provide Morganeason (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SharkD (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You have made changes to our site which dramatically changed the layout and style. We appreciate your efforts as long as they were with good intentions. However, we do feel you have limited the good work produced by Onyeka. Only in the interest in avoiding COI we will maintain the changes stated but as more material arises with which we have references we will continue to add to this page. B.Moir (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC) B.Moir —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

I was hoping you could provide some clarity or direction for me. My goal is to create an entry for a local theatre company I'm involved with that has content regarding its history and where it came from similar to other wiki pages I've seen for other theatre companies.

I'm completely new to wikipedia so I guess I'd like to know what I might be able to do to add information that would meet the requirements for a wiki page.

Thanks,

JohnnyForReal (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemike, I agree that most local theatre companies are probably not notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry, I would argue that perhaps Storybook is. The company has a 33 year history of producing shows which is quite a long time by any standards in the Canadian theatre landscape. Also it's one of the largest theatre companies in Calgary with an annual attendance of between 25,000 and 30,000 patrons. If I'm completely out to lunch please let me know and I'll drop it, but I disagree that this particular theatre company is not notable.

Thanks,

JohnnyForReal (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you have made an edit on this new article, I thought you would want to know that I placed a notability tag on it and expect to get feedback from its CoI creator. If you have an opinion on its notability, feel free to comment on the talk page. -- Brianhe (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As expected, the editor left a message on my talk page accusing me of CoI. Anyway, thanks for re-visiting the article. -- Brianhe (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you senior editors. I appericate your gental hand in dealing with me on my first day Orangemike. To Brianhe I appolgize for attacking you on your talk page. I have removed my rude comments and hope we can have a polite discussion. I am new here and could use your help on how I can improve my article. I'm afraid the general warning being left at the top of the page aren't able to help me. I appericate any feedback you can provide on how my article can be imporved. Thank you very much - Morganeason (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues brought up on the discussion page and my talk page and have requested from both editors that if they agree with the changes that they remove their advertisment and notibility tag. Will you please consider removing your CoI tag. Thank you -- Morganeason (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I became concerned when I saw the pattern of edits made by a user, especially given some of the information contained on his user page. If anything happened, I'd hate to have been someone who just stood by and did nothing, so I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look. --Sift&Winnow 17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. It really wasn't the content of the edits that was of concern. It was that 90+% of the edits were on the same topic by a person of that age self-described by the 3 user boxes in the 3rd row of his user page. It may be nothing. It may not. Thanks for the look-see. --Sift&Winnow 19:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was tagged as A7 before it went to AFD, so the overlap doesn't really matter anyway. Despite the Hangon, it clearly meets CSD #A7, and should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as you were one of the admins to delete I Love Money 3, I thought you might want to have a look at I Love Money (season 3). I will inform the other admin as well. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If you think For the Love of Ray J (season 2) qualifies, it would be great if you could delete that one as well. The single reference is an advertisement for a casting call. Otherwise, no big deal, as I can take it to AFD. Plastikspork (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing your creation of Short, Mississippi, I wanted to note — the GNIS uses dynamic URLs, so copy/pasting the URL for a feature listing isn't the best way to cite the page. The easiest way to cite the GNIS is with {{gnis}} — see what I mean here. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask why you felt that the Xtravirt company Wiki entry warrented deletion "again" without any notice to make a correction to what was wrong with it?

Xtravirt is one of the most well known companies in the virtualization industry. With comapnies like VMWare on wikipedia maybe you should delete them too?

The page had already been inspected and approved after a few changes by 2 other admins beforehand?

Also I fail to see why it would qualify as G11 Advertising? Would that not make all Company wiki entries advertising also?

--JamesMchallem (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your feedback on this issue would be appreciated. --JamesMchallem (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I get your input on my talk page to the author of the above page? You deleted it as a copyvio from several sources. It was recreated, and I deleted it again. But of the two sources you listed in the edit comment, one only has a small portion of the input, and the other is behind a login screen, making it difficult for me to verify the vio the second time. But the second one was pretty much the same as the first, so I CSD G12ed it again, in good part on your research from the first time. Now the author is on my page wanting better explanations, and they are hard for me to give since I acted based on your research. You assistance in communicating with the author at this point would thus be appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, here is a new one. On LaFollette's discussion page there is a link by User:Rayc from 2006. It purports to be to a doug lafollette bio or wiki. The link (douglafollette.com) is actually to a porn site. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon looking at Rayc's user page, I conclude that when he put up the link it wasn't to a porn site. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in WP that allows people to delete things on the talk pages, (in fact I didn't think that was really allowed) but I did it anyway. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this is exactly the same issue as Category:Jewish libertarians which you spearheaded removing, here, do you want to spearhead this one or should I notify you when I do it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never forgotten to sign a talk post, but somehow, recently, my sig became unwikified, apparently because somehow, recently, my sig Preference got changed to "raw". DonFB (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject met the notability standards by reason of multiple references that meet WP:V and WP:RS, as well as WP:LOCAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to erase the Arthur Kade page without asking me to assert why it's relevant. Yet another example of the downside of clubby wikipedia.--Phillytruthteller (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)— Phillytruthteller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Mike, the references included a notable blog (Gawker.com), an in-depth audio interview by a very notable celebrity (Danny Bonaduce) that was broadcast live on a notable radio station (WYSP), and a feature article in a regionally significant and nationally recognized magazine (Philadelphia Magazine). How does that not meet WP:BIO? Ours is not to judge the value of the subject but only to determine whether the sources cited meet our own guidelines. I won't restore over you, but if you don't I'll be taking this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. How we feel about a subject should not overpower the preponderance that existed in the article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 00:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that little tag you put after my name? Yeah, well maybe that's what happens when somebody signed up within the past three days. Sorry if I'm not committed to spending 72 hours editing. --Phillytruthteller (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not; Mike did. Nothing about your username suggests that you are an SPA, but editing elsewhere (i.e. being interested in Wikipedia as opposed to one subject) would allay such suspicions further. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 00:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So don't just revert — fix it correctly. You 2 don't just want to see an odd digit with no meaning and not consistently applied. So label and format. I don't appreciate being labeled a "vandal" for my efforts. You might choose your comment more carefully next time you disagree with an edit. Długosz (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I never used the term "vandal" or anything even remotely like it; I stated that I was reverting the "removal" of this information. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw "[rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]" in red when I clicked on the message link. I thought that was the comment for the change you made. Długosz (talk)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arthur Kade. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. I believe there have been MANY productive responses to concerns on past AfD's, but some still don't seem to agree. If there is any way you can think of improving the article, or contributing to the current AfD, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "

You may not know it, but I believe your suggestions will be paramount to the successful inclusion of RantMedia. I've vastly improved the article since the AfD nomination as well as -- since Tuesday afternoon. I wasn't clear to me what was necessary to be done with the article, and you helped lead me to the answer of my question of "what is it going to take?". So from the bottom of my heart, thank you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I had the holdon tag in the page. You ignored this and proceeded to delete the page without waiting the seven day period for me to improve the content. Why? Rcrandallant (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about Charles L. Flint (artist), there was no assertion of notability nor any indication of notability. --Orange Mike |

Talk 16:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It was right in the article. He was president and director of several historical preservations, archives, and organizations. He assists historical foundations in uncovering details about their artifacts. You have been on wikipedia for a long time, how do names like Edith Wharton and Herman Melville not seem notable to you? The least you could have done was respect the holdon tag and given me the seven day period I was allowed to improve the article. I am going to have a "deletion review." Rcrandallant (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt then to let me refine the article? You can always just delete it later.

Rcrandallant (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to have the opportunity to be proven wrong again. Returning it to my sandbox would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you Rcrandallant (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost me with this one. G11? Blatant advertising? It's a commonly used abbreviation for the company to where it redirects (Mitsubishi Motors Philippines, the country's second largest auto manufacturer). See these multiple mainstream Philippine sources using it: here, here, here, and here. As a commonly used abbreviation, it's a legitimate search term, so I can't see it's deletion serving readers in the slightest.

Had there been other WP articles whose topics used the same abbreviation, I would have disambiguated, as with Mitsubishi Motors Europe (MME) and Mitubishi Motors Corporation (MMC). As far as I can see though, there aren't, so a redirect seems perfectly appropriate to me. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a spam article by that title, not a redirect of any kind! On further examination, I see that you created a redirect which the spammer overwrote in order to create his/her spam "article." I've restored the original redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes sense. I just got a speedy deletion warning on my talk page a couple of days ago, and when I logged in this evening I immediately went "Huh?" In my absence I'll have missed any watchlist activity that would have alerted me to the spamalot shenanigans (otherwise I'd probably just have reverted it all myself).

Boy, am I glad I didn't do one of these "How DARE you?!?!?!?!" internet tirades and gone storming off to WP:RFArb. "Defrock the swine! Look what he did to my precious redirect with those dirty rotten tools of his!!!!" My face would have been scarlet. --DeLarge (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey you deleted my Vgamereviewer page about promotional martial how come you don't delete The angry video game nerd or Chad Vader or something like that isn't that promotional as well I really want to make a wiki page about my show just like the avgn and chad vader made a page how come mine is the one that got deleted not avgn or chad vader. Jwillow (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mike. I'm trying to create a page called Sturge, but get the error message "The page title you have tried to create has been protected from creation." The protection log shows you protected it on 8 July 2008.

I'd like to put a {{surname}} page there. Do you want the protection to continue? My page would contain something like:

• Alfred Sturge (1816–1901), Baptist who ministered in Devon, India and Kent
• Joseph Sturge (1793–1859), English Quaker and founder of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society
• Thomas Sturge Moore (1870–1944), English poet, author and artist
• William Allen Sturge (1850–1919), English physician and archaeologist

...with appropriate tags, etc. Do you think it would be wise to allow such a page to be created, or is the vandalism threat ongoing and overriding? Regards, Hebrides (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected at your request. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to create it. It's still protected, and won't let me create... Hebrides (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have commented, in the talk page about Aniara, your edit about Karin Boye. Have you read my remark? Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to find info about Kevin Richardson the lion guy and I see you deleted it. Hes been on TV shows and what not and is a notable person. You should probably undelete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.211.4 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what your saying but I believe that my wiki should be created I mean people watch my video's and visit my website I just believe that I have the right to create a page for the vgamereviewer.Jwillow (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This page was deleted on June 8th. I suspect that there may possibly have been vandalism to the page on that day, which caused its credibility to come into question. That article existed uncontested for at least a year and a half to two years prior. There was severe vandalism on that same day to a related article that I wrote, for the artist Naomi Elizabeth. Let me know if it may be possible to undo the deletion. Thanks so much, Hhtttt (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How in the world is it being off topic? His ideology is how people perceive him. Also, I put several sources, so if one wasn't reliable than what all you had to do is take it out. If you don't respond within the next few days I'll put the section back in.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

His ratings are reliable sources, and are present in Obama's page. Also, his ideology is relevent to the page because it how people see him. If people see him as a radical, thats how some people look at his image. Are you personally offended by what was mentioned in the section? The page can't simply praise Obama, he is also criticized.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In the notability guidelines it says that publications from secondary parties like magazines and books count for notability. I listed a few but I could list more. If these guidelines are true, then the subject in question is notable---because from my understanding notability on wikipedia is in the context of "if something is well known," and there are many more citations available. One is an entire chapter, and not a short one.

Thank you for you time and advice Rcrandallant (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, you deleted a page that i was working on named Performance Designed Products. The reason stated was it was an advertisement. My question to you is how do we create a page that doesn't have the earmarkings of advertisements. We really want to work this out and have a PDP page as it is relevant to the gaming industry as a whole. Please let me know, Chad (MAjodi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAjodi (talk • contribs) — MAjodi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 16:34, 23 June 2009

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth United. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Maihunggogoi (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you remove the creation protection on David Choi? The article has been re-created and deleted repeatedly, but I think he is notable now. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I will check the sources more carefully now. California Chronicle is listed in Google News, so I think it is somewhat more than a blog, but I am not sure how strict Google is. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether they have good editorial control, or just publish anything. I will ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It turned out the California Chronicle article is a reprint from The Orange County Register, [8], which is an ordinary newspaper. Take a look at David Choi if you want to check if I did well enough. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

Help…. I see that Richard North’s Wikipedia entry was recently deleted. I can vouch that this man is a very successful businessman and entrepreneur based in the West Midlands, England. Amongst other companies, he owns China Industries limited, a company whose turnover has doubled year on year. Its products are sold worldwide, and in the UK are sold in all the major stores including Debenhams, House of Fraser, W H Smith, Hamleys, Argos, Harrods etc etc. He is a former world rifle champion and once owned the famous Webley and Scott gun-makers. One of his companies BoysStuff.co.uk was valued at over £100 million.

Next year his company will be launching the ‘Wow! Stuff Annual Young Inventor Awards’. In general Richard does a lot of good work, giving large toy donations to major charities. He has unique licensing brand with several blue chip brands e.g Wallace & Gromit, Ardmann Animation, BBC (Worldwide), BBC (Top Gear), MENSA, Puzzler, National History Museum, Science Museum etc.

He will shortly be attempting to break a Guinness World Record for value of sales over a given period per square foot of retail space. Richard really is a rising star with a TV deal at an early stage etc. This being so, can you help to restore him to Wikipedia and in particular, what supporting information would be required. Although I use the internet continuously, I am not very used to this type of dialogue box communication. Maybe you would email me <redacted>

Richard North is a very genuine person Mike. I have the greatest of respect for Wikipedia, I frankly think it to be a work=2 0of sheer genius... BUT a lot of records have not yet fully migrated to the Internet and so things for some time will perhaps need external support too. Thsi isn the case with Richard, but he is a person that is certainly worthy of inclusion.

Kind regards,

Bryan United Kingdom

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard North --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be an expert at maintaining Wikipedia. I would very much appreciate it if you would comment on my editor review, to give me an idea of how I am doing. Thanks, Triplestop (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I saw you had posted above my post to WP:NPOVN and as you helped out with similar issues at that other article I was wondering if you could take a look at this as well. I think this is a very clear-cut case (please let me know if I'm wrong) conserning one word, but the user is still insisting on his view and as only one other person (TreyGeek, who's part of the MMA-project and was asked by my to chip in) replied there's no concensus for me to point to. Thanks and cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He reverted you so I reverted him and gave him a warning that if he continues I'll take it to ANI. I had completly forgot about WP:PEACOCK (which non-surprisingly lists "world-class" as an example) so maybe he'll stop after seeing that. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Or would this fall under "content dispute" even though it's so blatant? What would be the next step? --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Traditional marriage movement#Bad title should have read, "As of 1967, when Loving v. Virginia came down, sixteen U.S. states still made it illegal for blacks and whites to marry." Please go edit it to say only that, and omit the ad hominem argument. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, which is valuable, and for your consideration and prompt attention to this request -- the dialog on that page needs as many cool and well-informed heads as it can get! (sdsds - talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I was reviewing CSDs and came across Tom Fahy which was up for CSD:G7. Researching to confirm that the article qualified for G7, I noted that it previously was tagged for an unqualified A7 which you denied. It really irks me when articles are improperly tagged with a CSD:A7, so I was particularly pleased to see that you removed the A7 and tagged for ProD. I just wanted to thank you for your help in following a fair and proper procedure to clean up Wikipedia cruft. Excellent work! —  X  S  G  04:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, quick question. I have noticed that you have been removing (as have I) "Biography" headings from bio articles on the basis that the whole article is a bio. Very sound reasoning if I may say so, and reasoning that I completely agree with. Is there a discussion somewhere that has made this formally a part of WP:MOSBIO? I ask because I boldly made this change on Michael Jackson and was almost instantly reverted. So looking for a discussion, if any, where a consensus was reached on this. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, you convinced me, but I suspect others may need something more concrete. I'll keep at it. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"

I guess a world record trans-european event is not important or significant. Traveller71 (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in many cases, such as that one, no. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the large number of wikipedia pages I've read about large scale events that have taken place and/or other pages listing world records then I'll agree to disagree with you on that one. Traveller71 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A world record can be mentioned, but does not in and of itself create notability in an otherwise non-notable subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with Sadhana (weekly) and Yadunath Thatte; especially with regards to cats, which I am hopeless with. We have come a long way from CSD in a short while, even though most of the sources seem to be offline. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prod; if you want to merge it to Alliance Party of Northern Ireland then propose a merge or just boldly do it. Fences&Windows 01:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, John Russell (Florida politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Russell (Florida politician) (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding File:AntiObama.jpg. I just deleted it per WP:CSD#G10, when I did so I did not realize that you had undeleted it in the past challenging such a claim. Given that I am the third admin to consider this image to have no purpose other than the disparage its subject perhaps deletion review would be appropriate if you still think G10 does not apply? Given that CSD is meant to be non-controversial I will reverse my deletion at your request and file for a deletion debate. However, considering the name, and that the image is just a person crossed out I don't see how this image has any encyclopedic value and how it does not disparage its subject. I think WP:NOT also applies. Chillum 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have now deleted it again. Never mind the political arguments, it fails at least two speedy image criteria. It's a derivative work, almost certainly of a copyrighted photo (F9), and even if it's a free photo - though I can find no evidence of this and it doesn't exist on Commons - the license is still wrong (F3). Black Kite 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your work with Neolithic 66. I left a comment for him also. I want to collect what other user names have been recently adding borderline articles on Springer products--if necessary, I can speak directly with the company, though my best senior contact (& friend) there has moved elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You notice that Neolithic has frozen up since I last reverted him? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aditya ^α _ß 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was meant to be -- "Oh no not this shit again" -- my sarcasm got the better of me. – ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you help me unprotect the current Grupo Mayan page? The previous admin Spartaz has reitred from wikipedia and is no longer active. This is a page that you helped delete ocne, but after discussiong and some editing it was able to stay up online. This page has been heavily edited from its original versions and now fully complies with all wikipedia standards. I would like to restore it to its new version, and if furtehr edits need to be done, then I will go ahead and so them. Thank you. Pringlescandy (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I was editing it when it got deleted. So I think a portion was recreated before I read your message. I will work on the draft page. I like this company, and liked the work I put into their previous article. It is a difficult situation since most of the reliable media on this company is in spanish. I will link it to the thousands of newspaper articles that come out in mexican news papers. I assume I just have to contact you again to look over the draft? Thank you.Pringlescandy (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you to contact several editors, particularly some of those involved with the prior Afd discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked Qainfotech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and advised them to change their name. I have also counseled them regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Fred Talk 12:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? None of that is reflected on the COI editor's talk page! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I not sure that the COI editor's talk page is. He appealed through the mailing list unblock-en-l. Fred Talk 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi I also added a link to UpcomingCons.com on the Anime Convention article and I wanted to let you know in case you have a relevant experience, since I believe you had once removed it from the Science fiction covnetions article. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.255.123.137 (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, Mike. Do you think I shouldn't add the BT Rules project to the list under Visual Programming Languages ? Didn't want to a) leave an untidy external link in that page b) leave a dead end for article readers. I guess if it gets deleted then should remove the reference from that article too, or is there a lower 'notability' required for the use of a non-existent article link in a category list like this, which may in the future be populated? Don't know if replying on your talk page is the right way to do this either - inexperienced wikipedian Cefn (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!!!!

This is to inform you that you have deleted this article but have not closed AfD related to it. Please find AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Brian.

Thanks

Hitro 17:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of Orangemike in the oven (talk · contribs). I have reported the name but administrators have done nothing and he is currently vandalizing articles. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated NedaNet, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NedaNet. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Damiens.rf 04:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

THIS much interest in the interests of Mr. Ahmadinejad isn't too much interesting? Or am I too much sceptical? What do you think Mr. Orange Mike?--Breathing Dead (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mike,

This is none of my business, really--it just happened to be under the topic on the Editor Assistance page that is pertinent to me. Just a thought to consider: maybe Italdal wasn't being rude when he called people "Mexican." They are Mexican, and the page is about Mexico and other Latin American countries. It seems he was suggesting--not very tactfully--that their country of origin was producing a bias in how they viewed the article. Yopienso (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quick with placing more tags! :)

Can I ask, do you have an interest in the NonStop, or are you watching the article because you believe it to be some non-notable topic? Rilak (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am familiar with citations and references, but the article does not contain much content to cite. The papers I added describe specific models of the NonStop, but the article has no content about them. The article will have to be expanded before those papers can be cited. You also mentioned that the article was on the verge of being promotional. Can you please elaborate as to why you believe it is so? Is it because of the lede sentence? Regards, Rilak (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your first point, there is discussion of the importance of the NonStop. I believe it runs stock exchanges and other important things. The papers I added discuss how fault-tolerance is achieved in the NonStop. The article will eventually have to discuss why the NonStop are fault-tolerant, in addition to what makes them notable and their history, and that is when they will be useful. In response to your second point, I don't believe it is promotional (a computer described as fault-tolerant will have to be fault-tolerant and compared to average computers, it can be described in an assessable manner as extremely reliable) but I do see the problem: reliability will have to be described in an objective manner. Rilak (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

take a look at what I did at the Swaffham Prior railway station. Every RR station in the UK has information, and fits into an elaborate Wikipedia template, even if the original author didn't bother finding it. DGG (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (btw, I and Uncle G each gave that author some badly-needed advice)DGG (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to get your thoughts. Unitanode 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Thanks for the welcome message and tips about editing. I have a question though, the edits I made to Reframe It weren't intended as advertisements - they were quotes from articles I read that had some cool thoughts. Can you give me some advice about how to make (positive) quotes not sound like ads? Obviously quotes from people who hate a company won't be advertising it, but I'm a little unsure about how a person can say anything in favor of a company without it sounding like preaching from a soapbox. The Reframe It thing is cool (which is why I edited it), but I'm not trying to sell it to anybody. Got any tips? Thanks Sarah Hubbard 15 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very good at these business articles and recognizing strategically placed PR stories, but something smells fishy, especially with the name of at least one of the contributors. Would you review at your leisure and act on it if need be? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You just deleted my page "Consumer Financial Protection Agency" after I replaced the content with material I had written myself. The new material is currently on another website but I did write it - how do I prove that to you? Thanks

Hi, You just deleted my page "Consumer Financial Protection Agency" after I replaced the content with material I had written myself. The new material is currently on another website but I did write it - how do I prove that to you? Thanks (Lstapler (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Hello there. Sorry, but It was not my intention to make a personal attack. English isn't my primary language and I have some difficult to say some things. When I said the are all mexicans is because I suspect that there is an user that uses 3 differets accounts. They write in the same way, and make changes almost in the same time, and by coincidence all of them are mexicans. We have a problem in this page List of Latin American subnational entities by Human Development Index, and I think we need someone who can help us tho solve the dispute. Please if you can help or know someone who can, see the talk page and make a comment. Thank's.--Italodal (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your speedy tag on this is a bit inaccurate. KG III is a reasonably well-known developer in the area and is not just a "Joe the plumber" on-hit celebrity. However, I do agree he's a bit marginal on the notability scale (by my stiff standards, anyway), so perhaps you should proceed with a regular AFD instead. The main reason he has an article is to prevent people from redirecting to his father. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Hannah Montana is a sock of Socutesopretty, who seems to be also involved with other teenage girl superstars. See User_talk:Socutesopretty. If using a name with Hannah Montana in it is blockable, could Kiley Thompson, Kiely Thompson, and Gabriela Adams also be blocked? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Orangemike. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

An article you recently speedy-deleted, Rawhide Boys Ranch, has just been recreated again (in apparently identical form), via a request at WP:AFC. I thought you might be interested. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You edited this article a few months ago. There is currently a debate on the talk page about whether or not to call it the "alleged" plot or to say "In the opinion of a congressional committe". I was wondering if you'd care to join the debate. annoynmous 02:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for suggestion of the best way to deal with [this user] who keeps adding links to an article she created which has been speedy deleted multiple times. Shsilver (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you recently deleted the page titled "Civil Aviation Finance and Operating Leases" which I created not too long a go. The reason given is 'advertisement' and I would appreciate some clarification as it was not intended as so but simply creating a new page for a new company. I hope this is the correct way to go about this otherwise please let me know how the article can be reinstated. Thanks (Dahab777 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

I have a question about UAA. In order to be subject to a spam username block, does a user just simply have to edit any page that correlates with their username? (eg User talk:Auckland University Press) Triplestop x3 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, would you block on account of an abuse log entry where the page was promotional, but was not actually submitted? [9] Triplestop x3 21:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Orangemike,

I've been surprised to discover that yourself and the editor that goes by the name "Hu12" have recently undid the recent changes I've made and, particularly, eliminated the "Shingetsu Institute" entry, while at the same time reporting me as a "spammer." I think that this is a misunderstanding, and appeal to you to investigate the situation a little more carefully.

The article you deleted, "Shingetsu Institute," is the world's leading research institute when it comes to the study of Japan's relations with the countries of the Islamic world. If you doubt that statement, then I challenge you to find another institution that ranks ahead of it in this field. As such, it is both notable enough to deserve inclusion in Wikipedia, which has many articles with titles such as "Islam in Japan" and "Iran-Japan Relations" and so on.

Furthermore, the article you deleted was not written as simply as a promotion (though, of course, having the article at Wikipedia is beneficial), but rather as a reference to anyone seriously interested in Japanese-Islamic relations. The Wikipedia article in question had existed for several years, and was worked on by about a dozen people; other than myself, I don't know who they were.

You and "Hu12" probably guessed correctly that I have some affiliation with the Shingetsu Institute, and thus might be charged with a "conflict of interest," depending on how widely you interpret that issue. However, there are not many academic specialists of Japan's relations with the Islamic world, and the large majority of these, like myself, are gathered as members at this institute. It is thus almost inevitable that any accurate article about the Shingetsu Institute or related topics would need input from one or more of those who participate in its network. (I might add that the Shingetsu Institute is an acdemic gathering that does not generate profits and relies -- like Wikipedia -- on volunteer contributions.)

Finally, what seems to have triggered the recent round of deletions of my efforts at Wikipedia is that I had begun adding new links between Wikipedia pages such as "Iran-Japan Relations" with relevant Shingetsu Institute pages such as "Japan-Iran Relations." This was not spam or an attempt to make a profit. This was added as a legitimate further reference for those who want to go more deeply into the relevant subjects.

Orangemike, the best case I can make is to ask you to visit the Shingetsu Institute webpage yourself and spend a little time exploring around it. The nature of the organization should become apparent to you if you do so.

Appropriate links between relevant Wikipedia pages and relevant Shingetsu Institute pages serve our common educational objectives. These links should be encouraged, not condemned.

Vergon2 (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Orangemike,

Thank you for the prompt response.

As for the two accounts, Vergon and Vergon2, there is a very simple explanation. I created the Vergon account several years ago and misplaced the password; so I created the Vergon2 account and wrote down the password somewhere where I knew I could find it. If my objective was "sockpuppetry," I'm sure I could have been more clever than to use the same computer and replace the name Vergon with Vergon2!

I have no problem with the idea that a neutral editor should decide on the merits of the inclusion of the Shingetsu Institute and its links to the pages that I am suggesting. I believe that most fair-minded people will understand that the edits and additions I am talking about are logical, appropriate, and a geniune benefit to users of Wikipedia.

As for my "conflict of interest," I'd just like to assure you that I also value Wikipedia as a neutral reference tool. My mistake was that perhaps I was too confident in believing that others would automatically perceive that these links were appropriate and the text written in an objective manner, and thus I didn't expect that "conflict of interest" concerns would be raised.

At any rate, I will proceed henceforth in the manner that you have suggested using the talk pages. For my part, I will also hope that you will reevaluate your decision to delete the "Shingetsu Institute" entry (which was not written entirely by me and which had existed for two or three years). I ask this not for myself, but because the users of Wikipedia interested in Japanese relations with the Islamic world would benefit from the direct reference to the scholarly community that studies these issues.

Vergon2 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to National Fenestration Rating Council has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - based on a quick news search (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22National+Fenestration+Rating+Council%22&cf=all) - the group is clearly notable - will source & cleanup article ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Major WP:BITE yet again 8-(

This is a guy who's so well known in the field that I've heard of him from the other side of the Atlantic. Yes there's an issue, and the user seemed to be well inclined to address it. Great timing for a tag-team bitchslap from a pair of admins! Indef block, then an unblock refusal.

There was _NO_ need for this block. A username change could have been handled entirely amicably, and appeared likely to happen at any moment. Now we've managed to WP:BITE a potential contributor, who I'd be surprised (hopefully so!) to see ever editing again.

Users and businesses like this don't need Wikipedia. Wikipedia does need contributors like this.

This content wasn't direct promotion, expect possibly indirectly as rasing their prestige. They were linking to their pre-existing publications that were fine WP:EL material and if anything were encouraging the development of skills and knowledge in their competitors. That's the open source development model, not advertising or spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Orangemike,

Today, my page entitled George F. Donohue was deleted by you. I'm still quite new to Wikipedia and have read through many of the user guides. I've edited my page 2x, making it more neutral and included citations for my page. However, you claim that the page is for advertising/self-promotion. Could you help me by pointing out the specifics of my page so I know what to change? It would help me greatly and I'd really like to put up George's information. Thank you Orangemike!

Sincerely, Jtoms1 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Dear Orangemike,

Thanks much for your feedback. As long as I remove sentences like those, will my page be good to go? Once again, thanks for the quick feedback!

Sincerely,

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoms1 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A while back you deleted my short stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irradiance_caching I was wondering if the history is stored somewhere even when a page is deleted? Or if it is completely gone from the system? daviddoria —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

I think it would be best to delete American City University. The article is unverifiable, and I find no indication of third-party references to indicate notability.

An institution by that name is listed on all of the major standard lists of unaccredited schools, but those lists all say it's in Wyoming. Apparently the Cheyenne, Wyoming, outfit (which also had an address in England[10]) used the domain name http://www.americancityuni.com/ (now a dead URL) and the current incarnation in Fresno uses the domain http://www.acuni.us/ . Maybe these are the same operation, or maybe not. Wyoming was a diploma mill haven, but has recently gotten tough on unaccredited schools, while California "sunsetted" (and has not replaced) its lackadaisical state approval system for private higher education. Thus, it's possible that a diploma mill would relocate from Wyoming to California. Whatever the reality is, keeping the sourced entry in in List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and deleting the unsourced stand-alone article would be consistent with Wikipedia policy and would not deprive users of any useful information. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I also generally favor keeping articles about diploma mills, for the reasons you cite, but diploma mill articles tend to get taken to AfD (as with Canbourne University) unless there is some true third-party coverage. --Orlady (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Orangemike,

Although he might not be in Forbes of Wall Street Journal, he is the President GMAC Real Estate International Properties Group and a Principle of RECAP. There are plenty of other Presidents of companies listed on Wikipedia that are significantly less notable. George was the General Manager of the World Trade Center in NYC for 12 years, he wrote a book on real estate negotiating that has been given multiple awards, he has been the President of 2 extremely well known and large real estate firms in the United States for over 20 years. I'd be more than happy to remove some of the advertising language and fixing citations, but I would hope that he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

Here are some articles about him:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_12_50/ai_111115560/

http://www.successdna.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=237&Itemid=98

http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/George-F.-Donohue/3757 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoms1 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Jtoms1 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Orangemike, would it be too much to ask to remove the part stating that the page was deleted for advertising and promotional purposes? I'm not George Donohue and I'd really would like to avoid upsetting him if he were to search for himself and see that it says his page was deleted because of advertising. Thank you. Sincerely, Jtoms1 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Orangemike, I can recognize and appreciate that, but it was completely not intended as an advertisement. It was purely meant to be a biographical piece. I now recognize how some of the language I used could have easily been interpreted as an advertisement, however, thats not what it was meant to be. I do not intend to reupdate this page until George is recognized as notable by wikipedia standards. Is there some reason that you are so intent on making this part of the historical record? Thanks.

Sincerely, Jtoms1 (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike.

I see you made mention on the Ismael Mathay Sr. High School article's talk page that some of the Notable alumni might be notable enough for their own articles. If sufficient quality sources could be used, I agree - although not knowing anything about them, I would not be able to do it!

However, this does not alter the fact that the first part of the article (perhaps more, I didn't check all of it) is a direct copy of the text at [11], cited as a source for the information.

I don't want to just remove it, as

1. people might think it's vindictiveness on my part (even though I bear no ill-will to any of the editors on wikipedia) as I've mentioned it elsewhere (like the Help Desk)
2. the original creator of the page User:Palengkero would probably just undo my changes, as they did with my {{mergesection}}s and {{primarysources}} tag for the Notable alumni section.

Could you do me a favour and check this? It might be that Palengkero is the owner of the website in question, and has released the copyright... but I don't see that mentioned - if that's the case, would you tell me, and also tell me where I can find out that information.

I know that I'm very much a novice editor, and would appreciate any help and advice you can give me!

Thanks PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You recently deleted Manarom Hospital as CSD G11. I feel, however, that the article, while indeed carrying a promotional tone, was of an eligible subject, referenced, and didn't purely satisfy WP:SPAM. In any case, the article has been recreated, and should probably be restored to preserve the article history, if not re-deleted. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing your tagging of the recreated article, I understand that there's no need to restore the revision history? The recreated article was done by copy and pasting, though, and has also lost its wiki formatting and proper citation templates. I think restoring the previous article would at least resolve the citation, wikification and categorization issues, if not the notability and advertising problems. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that somehow didn't seem to have the intended results. I'm now listed (incorrectly) as the only contributor to the article content. Could you look into this again please? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for bumping, but the page history showing me as the first contributor is still wrong. Could you change it back, so that User:Siwimol is properly credited? Thanks.

Sorry for still bugging you with this, but I thought you mightn't have seen my note? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 04:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping so far. I've posted a request at ANI to try and further resolve the issue, FYI.--Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored all the deleted revisions per Paul's request; it does look like something went a bit screwy. Should be all fixed now. ~ mazca ^talk 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So how do you explain the link to a 5 day course at MIT being added at the foot of the Synthetic Biology article? This course costs a few thousand dollars! Or is it only "spam" if it's by non-profits outside the USA?! PointOfPresence (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to that linkfarm; I've trimmed it back some. Nonetheless, the proper response to one problematic article is not to let others get equally bad, but rather to improve the problematic one. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not some sort of bias againt learned societies (which others have certainly alluded to in the case of one of your colleagues, TripleStop, whose sole purpose in life seems to be purging, deleting, removing....he doesn't actually post anything in the way of actual contributions! PointOfPresence (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the possible reasons for certain admins' behaviour. Most helpful. Let me say right away that I am a BIG fan of wikipedia and feel a strong sense of "duty" (if that's the right word) to make positive, rather than negative contributions. However, it is immensely frustating to me that what is supposed to be an encyclopedia created by its users in a wonderful spirit of equal opportunity to edit, there are even such people as admins. It would seem that some are more equal than others. If we are not careful, it could ultimately become just like any other publication, ie the one-way transmission of information from the "ins" the the "outs". It makes people very cross when they have perfectly valid edits cancelled by heavy-handed admins who believe they "know best". I am not accusing you of this, of course, but there have been links to further information, which is fully open access and free of charge which have been deemed "spam". All this does is deprives wikipedia readers of information. "spam" in most people's view is about trying to sell products. Thanks for your time PointOfPresence (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you reexamine that IP's talkpage, you'll see that "spam" was linked to a fuller explanation. In fact the IP was a commercial publisher for a learned society, covertly engaged in the promotion of its products, a clear violation of WP:COI that I hope would never be endorsed by that society. It is fortunate that the spammer was rather clumsy in execution, and so was detected.LeadSongDog come howl 19:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so be it. That's probably enough on this. Thanks. But I hope someone is ultimately regulating the regulators! PointOfPresence (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear OrangeMike,

You recently deleted my George F. Donohue article stating it was a self-promotional piece and was poorly cited. We had gone back and forth a couple times discussing the validity of the article in question. I would really like to make this article my first contribution to Wikipedia. I still feel strongly that George’s notability has earned a place on Wikipedia and I’m hoping to prove that to you in this message. I realize that I had made some mistakes regarding wikipedia's guidelines, however I'm looking for an opportunity to fix this. To give you some more background on his notability, here are some additional notes. George was the President of William B. May, the oldest commercial Real Estate firm in the entire United States and is currently the President of GMAC Real Estate IPG, a part of one of the largest Real Estate firms in the entire U.S. In addition to these two notable accomplishments, George was also the youngest manager of the World Trade Center for over 12 years. He is well known throughout the Real Estate community as an author, a public speaker, and a professor. His book, Real Estate Dealmaking: A Property Investor’s guide to Negotiating, was awarded Robert Bruss’ coveted top 10 real estate book awards. He has an international public speaking reputation and is particularly well known in China. He frequently speaks at events, universities and meetings. He is also a professor at Baruch University who teaches real estate and negotiation classes. Originally, I had sent you some poorly cited sources that I found off the web. However, I’ve had a chance to do some more research and I’ve included some links to some very reputable sources that display his notability. I would like the opportunity to rewrite the George F. Donohue article and I promise that I will do my absolute best to ‘wikify’ the article. Please let me know your thoughts on Mr. Donohue’s notability. Thank you. Sincerely,

Jason Jtoms1 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1317/sdsaf.png

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/8449/gview.png

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/9505/csfdf.png

Those PNG files are newspaper articles I scanned and then uploaded on www.imageshack.us. They include news articles highlighting George's accomplishments from Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Real Estate Weekly and the Real Estate Journal. I'll see if I can put them in a different format so you can view them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoms1 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I already removed the speedy deletion tag for Probitas Partners. If you wanted to delete that you should have nominated for AfD. Can you please provide an explanation for deleting. Given that I had removed the speedy tag and had made significant edits as well as included a tag indicating it was being worked on by the Private Equity Task Force you should have provided better warning of what you were looking to do. I would appreciate it if you would restore the article - if you want to nominate for deltion you can do so but it is not appropriate for speedy deltion. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also - before you do nominate for AfD I would encourage you to look for this thing on google. It is a fairly notable boutique investment bank and placement agent. This is a stub article but the firm is notable and my sense is that it is not going to be deleted. I would appreciate it if you would hold off on nominating for now as a favor. That just diverts my time -and I am spending less than usual on wikipedia - fighting an AfD rather than editing an article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess not - thanks for restoring at least. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious why this page was deleted for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" when this will be a free cd download & I gave the source for the information.

Mpan1 (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you placed a PROD on the above article, which I seconded. The creator of the page User:N ajger (talk, contribs) removed it.

I have put an AfD for this article, which can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baitul Aziz Jame Mosque, should you wish to join in with the discussion.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article currently references two hardcover books written in detail about the topic, under "Further Reading", and between that and the external links the material in the article all seems verifiable to me. Here's another book written about it, more of a how-to: [12]. Yes, it would be better to provide inline citations, but I don't have access to those books so I can't help there. Here are some other interesting articles that might be good to incorporate, and which are public access: [13], [14]. Why haven't I worked on the page and incorporated the material into the page? I think the page is already pretty good, even if it needs improvement on the referencing. It's also a noncontroversial topic. It's a very low priority for me. Cazort (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it sensible to block people with "account creation blocked" when they're blocked for spam usernames? I'm looking in this case at User talk:Avearecords, which would otherwise be a perfect candidate for suggesting "just start a new account". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have blocked User:Lakewoodranch. This person appears to have seen the article and then created a username to edit. Usernames are hard to get because even I remember having to try several times only to find that the username has been picked already. The first article that one edited sometimes gives the editor an idea of a name.

This is how I got my username. The F stands for Finland.

The user that you blocked was not promoting his or her own company. The article was about a city in Florida.

Would you unblock this person in order to make Wikipedia look more hospitable and say that you are sorry (in order to have good customer service)? I am willing to look after the person to make sure that the person is not a vandal. User F203 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is about a development, not a legal municipality. It has not government of its own, and is represented by a development corporation. Such a corporation has profit-based financial interests to COI-edit on Wikipedia. It is therefore appropriate to block such a username and allow the user to read and prove that they do not represent incompatible interests.

Mike is certainly within his "rights" as an administrator to act as he did, and has to reason to be "sorry" for anything. We are not interested in providing customer service to single-purpose accounts. The block message contains a link to locate alternative outlets for their goals. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the article sounded to me like a town. Furthermore, the user did not create the article, which has been edited by multiple editors since 2008. I'll look into it for a few more minutes but I think the only thing learned is that "we are not interested in providing customer service to SPA" is the wrong attitude. We should be helpful to all. All editors signed up and were SPA before they branched into their 2nd article. Being polite and helpful is human decency. Being a helpful administrator is just as important as a helpful teacher is to a young student or a helpful flight attendant to a confused passenger or a helpful parent to a child. However, I do realize that Tony wrote the comment, not you. User F203 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the templated block message contained in {{spamusernameblock}} contains all the niceties required. It uses language that encourages the user without incompatible interests to step up and make that known. And it simply tells SPA editors that, if they're only here for promotion, they won't be able to edit here. This is entirely within the guidelines of Wikipedia and is perfectly civil.

Further, I object to the classification of all first-time editors as SPA, as we don't unilaterally label them as such. Read the definition of a single-purpose account closely and you'll see exactly who we are targeting. Such editing disrupts Wikipedia and degrades the scholarly quality of the work done here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. We shouldn't call are first time editors SPA. However, we often do even though many editors edit just one article their first day. It's often a matter if we don't like the editor or not. I wish WP were nicer to people, that's all. User F203 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think asking editors to be civil is enough. "Nice" is entirely subjective, and while SPA editors might try to push their way if not blocked, delivering our message with civility is sufficient to encourage even-tempered editors to step up and learn the ropes. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this? It is not a city. Yet it is not just a homeowner's association. It seems like a part of a county, almost like a town.

http://www.manateeedc.com/SiteSearch.aspx?Search=Lakewood%20Ranch

If it is just a homeowner's association, I would support AFD. If it is a new city, cities are deemed automatically notable by Wikipedia. User F203 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the other confusing part. It is a U.S. census-designated place, which makes it geographically notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an unincorporated housing development ("planned community") on part of what was originally a timber ranch owned by some of our Milwaukee millionaires, like the Uihleins. It has no legal standing as a municipality. The only official website is an online sales brochure, and Lakewoodranch was drawing very heavily from the advertising material presented thereon. There is no doubt that as an inhabited place, Lakewood Ranch is notable; the trick is to avoid NPOV violations and promotional editing; but an AfD would be inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's the link..Orangemike and Milwaukee millionaires. Good luck. Enough for Florida for today for me. User F203 (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at my recent edits at the Public Image of Barack Obama and the policy rationales that I have used as justifications. The polls thatare quoted and cited do not use the language "incorrect". I feel there is a real problem representing individuals interpretations of raw data in violation of SYNTH. I think for the unadorn statements noone could possibly misunderstand or think the article is suggesting that Obama be a Muslim, and I certainly do not want it to either.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I´m not sure how synth can be selectively applied, however, you might agee that 7 mentions of incorrectly in one subsection is excessive and runs into spoon feeding and the purpose can no longer be to merely inform. I felt the first stement "Obama is a Christian" covered it all beautifully and the other was gratuitious. Cheers.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not from Florida but I have been there before, including Opa-Locka. Winters:nice. Summers:too hot. User F203 (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Per this: If you'd read his unblock request more thoroughly, you'd have seen that he says that, if unblocked, he "will start by updating genre-specific, but unrelated to the label" articles. That, to me, is a good-faith reason for unblock, and I'm granting him the username change. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, promoting a topic by making information about it available here, assuming it is otherwise consistent with our standards, is in both his and Wikipedia's interests (also, given that so many people don't even bother to respond to that COI question, I generally think anyone who does is entitled to a good-faith unblock). Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if, before speedily deleting articles under G8, you could take another look at the criteria. I am sure you would see that it is entirely inappropriate for self-contained articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Various vandals had removed a lot of data (in a day), so tonight I reverted back to a version before the users "Theofficialmellowdrone" (now deleted) and "75.30.125.139" started chopping up the page (suspicion that 75.30.125.139 may well be the deleted user...). So your CSD template was lost in the revert. Please have a look and decide if you would like to re-instate it. I have no feelings either way - I did the first revert last night while vandal fighting with WP:HG.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike. I think I've made the necessary changes here as per your instruction to remove the "advertiness" of this article? Also added links/article-references I thought were relevant or at least to wikify some sentences such as that on "green real estate"? David has been guiding me through the trimming & did other things he also advised me to do. I'm not sure what else should be done here to make it stand. Please help ... Thank you very much. Jxc5 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He's requesting unblock, a change to an acceptable username and he tells us what he wants to edit. Since he's hardblocked I can't tell him to just create the new account. Your thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that I fully understand how the tone of the article is promotional. All of the information comes from cited sources such as periodicals. There is no solicitation or any of that sort of language. There is no mention of "Teva is the best" or anything like that. All of the statements are facts, and if that paints the organization in a positive light, is that promotional? I took a look at similar organizations (501 c3) such as Make-a-Wish and the Alfred P Sloan Foundation, and I am not sure that I understand the difference in language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipedianDAK (talk • contribs) 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I came across another quirkiness involving Wisconsin. Okay in the surrounding states the lower house of the state legislature is known as the House of Representatives. Also various state legislatures like Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, etc. used General Assembly to named their state legislature . However, in Wisconsin, the lower house of the Wisconsin is known as: the Assembly. An interesting fact:in the rejected 1846 Wisconsin Constitution the lower house was to be the House of Representatives. The present 1848 constitution was copied from the New York Constituion and the lower house of the New York Legislature was&is known as the Assembly also.Many thanks-RFD (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The point I was trying to make with my post was that Wikipedia articles are often found using an external search engine, and it is hence IMO of encyclopedic value that the appropriate article is found. According to the Wikipedia naming convention for foreign organizations, the English translation should be the article title, rather than the foreign name. However, people may search the web for the organization using its foreign name, and because it is not part of the title of the page, it does not receive the high ranking it deserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Marcus- (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 August 2009

Also whilst I'm thinking about it could you take a look at User talk:216.81.240.241. It is seemingly an IP operated by Barkley Inc.. I had problems with them on Lee (jeans) although they now seem to have switched to using socks instead (e.g. User talk:Tvanwinkle, User talk:Annabelle 56 etc. Some of the articles they been involved in e.g. Lee National Denim Day and Breast Cancer 3-Day are almost 100% PR. They asked for advice at WP:COIN in May this year and where given it here but haven't taken it on board. I'm not quite sure whether it merits a SPI or not. Thanks Smartse (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I took a quick look at Lemke (Niederhausen) like you asked. I suppose Niederhausen is meant to be Niedersachsen = Lower Saxony? There is also a small village Lemke in the municipality Uelsen, so I'll move it to Lemke (Marklohe). Markussep ^Talk 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some info regarding the "wall of life" as it was added by a PR company for the NHS Lawton communications. It might be worthy of inclusion but in light of the obvious conflict of interest I've removed it. Smartse (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who made the earlier edits is indeed an employee of Five by Five Media, a division of Lawton Communications, which probably created the website. There have been a number of instances of editing which was or verged on advertising from the anonymous IP used, 81.171.236.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The person who made the edits has appealed to unblock-en-l. I am not going to unblock the IP address as I suspect several people from the firm are using the address, but will offer to create an account for the individual involved. I have counseled her regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. I also found two reasonably good references and restored the information. Fred Talk 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Orangemike. Thanks for your encouragement and your help. I must admit I'm getting stumped. Is the problem that I need to have a weblink for these, or is there something else? If you can focus me on what I need to learn, it would help. I'd also like to add to/correct some other entries (in my spare time---right...), but I'll hold off til I get the references down. Thanks, Orangemike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colestein (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway that I can change the article to meet your requirements. It is genuinely not intended for advertising purposes, but to educate individuals on pre-fabricated and custom engineered buildings. It can be a confusing world and would be beneficial for individuals to have a reliable resource when searching for information such as models, construction, foundation types, manufacturing, materials, service, and production. SteelMaster Buildings has been a steel building company for over 27 years now, and the information on the company is to ensure readers that we know what we are talking about. I have also noticed that there are several companies present on wikipedia, and are non-advertising. Please let me know what I can do to change the article so it is also considered non-advertising, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWickum (talk • contribs) 12:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a minor issue in Wisconsin; if I were putting together a voter guide for Wisconsin, sure, I'd leave it out. But immigration reform is an issue of international salience, and given Wikipedia's national and international focus, most of the other senators with at least somewhat competitive races include their stance on immigration reform. I'm no fan of NumbersUSA, but I can't deny their influence on the immigration debate. I'm hard pressed to think of another group who puts together these rankings on that particular issue; most of the anti-immigration right has left that in NumbersUSA's hands. Captainktainer * Talk 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me who created the Joshbuther.com article? It's a promotional username, but I don't remember how it's exactly spelled so I can't report it. Or can you block the account as a promotional username? Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DickClarkmises should be banned for trying to politicize content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowym (talk • contribs) 05:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Shimon Yanowitz is on a streak of adding original research personal attacks and violitions of 3rr. Can you do something about this pattern of disruptive behavior. There is an open ANi thread on it since yesterday. [[15]] To clarify so you understand I'm not admin fishing this is an extention of the behaviors since yesterday minus the personal attacks.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, this is not a spamname when it's linkspamming http://www.container-gardening-made-easy.com ?

OK, reasonable minds can differ. – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone. VSCont.G. here. Gosh, I'm mortified! I emailed Orange Mike earlier today regarding this, but have not heard anything back yet. I am brand new to this site, and tried several different usernames (which ended up being already taken), which is how I ended up with this one. Seems I goofed big time! I'm going to try to change the username immediately b/c in no way did I intend to do anything wrong. If I can't change it, I'll simply delete my account. I'm so sorry for this, it certainly was not intentional. Glad, though, to know about it early (like one day after joining!) so I can fix it right away. (also, sorry, don't know which way the squiggles go, before or after the name? I'll try both!) VSContainerGarden (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)VSVSContainerGarden (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Period Piece (book) has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(very widely held book--look for reviews)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Please can you alter the block on this account, to allow him to create a new account that is appropriate. He has tried to find out exactly what is wrong with his name, but it appears that he has been blocked with no useful explanation. I have now dropped a note on his talk page to explain what he needs to do, except that he wouldn't be able to do it if account creation is blocked! Thanks Jeni ^(talk) 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Having come across this issue, as one of the articles edited by PMMP NPS is on my watchlist. I noted it was reverted to my last edit, to remove the NPS link, by yourself and the editor indefinitely blocked for spamming. Having then checked the contributions by PMMP NPS I note that some, but not all, of the articles he placed links on have also been reverted by yourself to remove the NPS links. If the inserted links are considered to be spam, sufficently enough to have the editor blocked, then should'nt they equally be removed from the remaining articles he edited under the same criteria? Richard Harvey (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock Southern Fried Bigfoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the purpose of changing his user name to Sean from Dallas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Talk 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, from RGK (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Pursuant to the wikipedia rules as I cited in my hangon, this page was already removed from rapid delete by DGG. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. I was right in the middle of editing in the citations when you deleted the content, please restore it. RGK (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

this is indeed a problem article. That I declined deletion doesn't mean I'm happy with it, but there's too much literature to ignore. DGG (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You deleted a page I started. I am not the person or people I write about. google the name and you'll see a very "notable" valid person. If the article wasn't written in the right format--I'm new. I presented several links verifying what I wrote, yet it was just obliterated...Please reconsider. Sincerely77 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Orangemike … I too have been the FanGuest of Honor at a SciFi convention … see this sandbox for a photo of me (I no longer use that account for editing, preferring the life of an anon WikiGnome) … come to think of it, I should add a citation for "Astronomicon '01". to my biography. :-)

BTW, do you have any interest in chess? See Necessity and Sufficiency in Computer Chess Algorithms, an unpublished paper I wrote back in 1980. Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{12:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)}

Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{05:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)}

I'm working my way up to doing multi-move animations … I have updated this page with the latest animation, a queen moving diagonally, replacing the image of a knight moving … and if you have the bandwidth, there's a 768x1024 version of it (10.5 Mbytes) that makes for Really Kewl desktop wallpaper. :-) — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, you recently deleted the page that i was working on named Zynx Health. The reason stated was it was an advertisement. I have the same question as User Chad (Majodi), how do we create a page that doesn't have the earmarkings of advertisements? Zynx Health is a company that works with other companies on Wikipedia. In addition they are owned by the Hearst Corporation. How do we let people know who they are without being flagged as an advertisement?—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeShmo3000 (talk • contribs) — JoeShmo3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

By going to the page Wikipedia:Requested articles and following the instructions there. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Orangemike. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you purge the history of this page as it contained a copyvio? Thanks, Triplestop x3 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He'll stop arguing if we stop responding. Let the fire burn out.--Loodog (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Aside from the fact that I still have only a vague guess as to the subject of the stub, the use of "we" (or "you") is pretty nearly always a bad idea in an encyclopedia for adult readers" I'm not sure what your background is - but it is clearly not in any technical discipline. In ALL journals in computer vision and graphics, the use of the "royal we" is basically the required form of writing. Please check your notes before doling out your misinformed criticism. It also seems like it had "some" context - at least more than no page at all - if a person googles "irradiance caching" and finds absolutely nothing, how is that more helpful than at least finding a few key words that could guide them to look in the right directions? If someone comes along and say "oh, I know more about it than that!" then they can add their contribution and it will improve the page. It is much less likely for someone who knows about it to "stumble upon" a page that doesn't exist and think to take the time to create it... daviddoria (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No they can't. That constitutes Original Research. You have to show notability via wp:rsHell In A Bucket (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm...the AFD hasn't been even remotely close to finishing. Might want to wait for the AFD to end. Cheers, I'^mperator 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind; X closed it as speedy delete [16] Cheers, I'^mperator 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Elite TV article there was no advertising or promoting in the article.Scorpio95 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Im not wanting to kick up a fight or anything its just that I do not understand why the Mike Fowles page was deleted. Maybe we have two different people in mind. I am thinking of the highly esteemed brass conductor, Michael Fowles. Thanks for your time. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markcoulter50 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the same guy. The deleted article was about a property developer, and was written by somebody at his company. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please re-consider not deleting Shipley & Halmos. It's purely informational, not to be confused with unambiguous advertising. I can re-edit as soon as possible. Please confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsaffel (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that the editor created two articles, the one you deleted and Global Voice Group as well. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

i have previously reported the editor for a username vio as well. It was on the edge but in this case the articles say it is a spam name.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities aside, the link you send me of Manual of style, you are yourself violating it. It says that consistency is more important than anything else except when the article has strong national ties with some dialect. It no where states that the dialect of the maker of the article would be used. What I see from consistency is that its used the term "color" in any of the related articles. Please ponder : The wiki laws are more important than any of the stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmiles2470 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

See the entry for Orange (colour) under WP:LAME. This comes up every three months or so, although I believe it's been about a year since the last proposed change. There are far more important things to be concerned about on Wikipedia, which is why any changes are reverted to the stable version and everybody's given up counting the volleys back and forth. What's more important than "wiki laws" is the time and effort that this kind of issue takes away from productive editing, and the fatigue at hearing it for the 64th time. Besides, it's useful for imparting the notion that proper spelling varies in different parts of the world to those who are sincerely unaware. Acroterion _(talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say, we cannot compromise with rules of wikimedia, I am giving far more than a reason to my point. If we piorotize other things over the rules, then the sense of order & responsibily will collaspe. It simply does not makes sense to change dialect for the reasons you gave. Changing dialect just for the reasons like "Its english wikipedia, not american" is a direct step towards a wikiwar. Please consider the rule of

---

consistency

---

, not thinking to show other people "varities of english"; which is, infact, not the objective of wikipedia. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmiles2470 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

When I try and search the page on a search engine website such as google the link does not appear. Do I need to change one of the settings? However, when I search the title on the wikipedia page itself the page appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick M. Fisher (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie_%282nd_nomination%29. it was recently deleted, and you voted either delete or keep, and it has since been recreated. i am messaging all previous voters to see if they wish to vote again. please do not take this as canvassing, as i have attempted to contact all voters Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

response to Theserialcomma - You just won't give up Chicago Smooth (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me understand why you deleted the entry for Arthur MacArthur IV? I think he certainly deserves a wiki entry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1776Buff (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He's an obscure musician with a famous name but no notability of his own, a literal footnote in the history of his famous family. Notability is not inherited. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike - I think I addressed all the tags on this page, and added references, etc. Then I changed the name of the page to Michael Adams (graphic designer). It shows up if I search those words, but it doesn't show up in the Michael Adams (disambiguation) listings. Am I ok with this article. If so, could you fix the url so it appears in Michael Adams (disambiguation)? Thanks and let me know if there is any further attention this requires.

Collectimatic (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We discussed Frank Camper sometime ago and you had urged using caution when writing articles on that subject because they often make more of it then is reality. I would like to revisit that conversation and ask a question I have pdf documents of His Senate Transcripts and some letters with requests for information denials and subsequent sections they were denied under. I did get these copies from Mr Camper himself as I had alerted him it was not allowed to edit his own articles. He graciously sent me these documents that I had requested to review to see how I can add needed info. If you can begin to imagine the scope of the question thank you for help. If not please let me know and I will try and phrase another way. I am trying to not violate Original research and adheres to Rs.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of it is still not going to be from reliable sources, and/or will be original research. A lot of lies are told to government committees; just because it's in a transcript doesn't make it verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

i was confused when i saw that you deleted article about this band. It is very well known band and it exist 29 years. i think it fulfills all requests for band to appear on wiki. They have 5-6 albums for various publisher. i really dont know why they are deleted... Nadir80 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate a lot of the work you're doing fighting spam, I think you may sometimes be using the "promotional username" policy incorrectly, just to block people faster.

For example, you blocked User:Cusata6 for their username, even though that name was the result of them changing their username away from the one that was promotional. I believe that user was on the right track, and should have received a warning about external link spam, not an immediate block. Was this just an issue of poor timing -- as in, you hadn't seen the change when you blocked them?

I don't consider User:Smug6 a promotional username. The name "Smug6" does not promote anything, it only hints at their conflict of interest. The name is not a promotion and is far from being an "explicit group name", so the username policy doesn't apply. This should have been purely a COI issue.

Blocking new users is something that should not be done lightly. Most policies give users at least a second chance (although you can still block the most blatant vandals or spammers right away). This is why the username policy discourages instant blocking in less-serious cases.

I recognize this makes your job a bit more difficult, but I think it's important for you to ease up on blocking in cases that don't clearly require it. When I see users that have a chance of improving, I would like to give them that chance. We're running low enough on new users that we can't afford to lose more just because of the whims of an administrator. rspεεr (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

On 14 July 2009 you deleted User:MyPath/MyPath, giving as reason "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I see that on 5 August what I suspect is essentially the same article was moved to MyPath. It still looks to me to be essentially a promotional article. Of course I don't need to consult you on this, I can just propose it for deletion (speedy or otherwise). However, I thought since you have already looked at the article's predecessor and made a decision about it you might like to have a look at it. Also as an admin, unlike me, you would be able to judge whether it really is the same article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had already placed a warning about this here [17]. Perhaps it might have been better to have allowed time for the user to respond and apply to change name as this may have been a genuine mistake. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I can't see the deleted version, I read a version of this just a few months ago that was by no means blatant advertising. 89.100.145.57 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather coercive to use deletion to force others to do work you weren't interested in doing yourself. Do you do much of this sort of deletion? I'm concerned because 1) Site policies don't seem in accord with your apparent view that no article > a poor article 2) I don't recall this article as being particularly poor.

Perhaps you might deposit the deleted article in my talkspace so that I may use it as a frame of reference. 86.44.22.81 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article in question was not deleted "to force others to do work you weren't interested in doing yourself"; it was deleted because it was an advertisement full of peacock phrases like "to the general acclaim of the hiphop community". If you feel that an article can be crafted about this person which meets our requirements of notability for a musical performer, there is nothing to stop you from doing so. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately the phrase you quote enables me to find a mirror that Google still has cached (for now) @ [18], seeing as you did not have the good grace to provide me with the text yourself. Less fortunately, it shows that you are dishonest in discussing your admin actions. Far from being "an advertisement full of peacock phrases like ...", the phrase you quote is the only phrase in the article that is in any way hazy, and that one is in point of fact more an accurate overview than a WP:PEACOCK phrase. If you felt it could not remain without sourcing, rewriting the sentence to omit it was a trivial matter. If you felt the subject lacked sufficient notability, then the correct course of action was to search for sources and if unsatisfied send to AfD. This is the sense in which you are forcing others to do work you're not interested in doing yourself. It's not rocket science. And as I suggested at the outset, this one phrase alone leaves your summary judgment of "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion" unjustified. The article as it stood even had a cite to a journalist who has written for Vibe, Stylus and AllHipHop, which wasn't enough to stay your hand nor get you working. 86.44.16.156 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please restore both Reks and Statik Selektah? It is really weird that associated artists in hip-hop like this would be deleted by the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.211.0.98 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If somebody with an account here is willing to work on these articles, I'd be willing to restore them to their userspace to be worked on. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have PROD'd the above article, which you have contributed to, so I thought I would let you know. The reason I have given is Department is not notable in its own right. At most, it might merit a mention on the main University of Colorado at Boulder article..

There are still no references given (and I have been unable to locate any reliable sources) and there is no indication as to why this department is notable in its own right.

This is basically a heads-up to you - no response is required, but I thought it would be polite to let you know!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I was just doing some rounds and noticed an edit you made here. While you did a good job of clearing the linkfarm, you also accidentally took out some categories. Not like that's a huge mistake and I'm going to block you for it, but I was just hoping to ask if you could exercise a bit more caution in future edits. Keep up the great work! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I created a page (i'm new here) and am not sure why you deleted it. You stated copyrighted info but I am dating the owner of the association and posted what he told me to post I dont see how this is copyrighted material... I have recreated the page in a different format with different info. I am hoping it is correct now and will not be deleted again. If it is to be deleted again I am hoping for an explaination as to what I am doing wrong. Thanks! --HorusProtector (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COI and User talk:HorusProtector. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for reversion was noted in comments accompanying reversion. The reversion was engaged primarily because of the anonymous source. Blanton's article, much like Bill Janklow's article, has been an ongoing target of apparent anonymous IP "sniping." Whatever the potential (and debatable) merits of those edits, their objective has seemed to be primarily to denigrate the subject of the biography. I always try to discourage negative edits to Wikipedia articles by anonymous IP users. As an aside...your comments "if I'd won my race in 1974, I'd have been fellow Democrat Blanton's state representative!" were quite fascinating...and its interesting that you are from that area. Ray Blanton himself was, surely, an intriguing fellow. He seems to have been more of the "old guard" crony-type of politician, I gather. As his post-governor "career" played out, I felt somewhat sorry for him (should I?). Adamsville, Tennessee, is also in McNairy County, I believe...home of that legend Buford Pusser! Best regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWMNPoliSciProject (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 August 2009

Mike, I removed a sentence from the ACORN article that you had been recently editing. It incorrectly claimed someone pled guilty to voter registration fraud; he actually pled guilty to paying someone to work (compensating someone to register people). Also, that sentence incorrectly claims he is a 'director' of ACORN; he was fired by ACORN long before any charges were made. Why haven't I corrected the errors instead of delete the sentence? I removed it for now, per WP:NOTNEWS, because the actual story here (as the headline of the source shows) is that this person may testify in the bigger case and counter-case of Nevada vs ACORN and ACORN vs Nevada, which are still in progress. Rather than turn the article into a Breaking News Blog with tidbits of incomplete information, we should wait a short time for events to actually resolve. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I'm a bit busy at present, AFD or speedy? Same with its director. Extremely low budget made by some vagabond... Himalayan 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You deleted Hickory Springs as advertising, after another editor had created it and I had looked for references and added some. I think the subject of the article is notable, and that the overall style of the article, while not perfect, was reasonably fair. Please consider restoring the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a deletion review of Hickory Springs. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 28 -- Eastmain (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to un-salt Meteor Garden (Philippine TV series) and redirect it to Meteor Garden? The latter mentions the former. I should mention that I know very little about the topic(s). Whatever404 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a possible hoax, repeatedly recreated without sources. If and when somebody comes up with some cold hard facts, it can be recreated. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have zero knowledge of this, and am not particularly invested in the outcome, but if what you're saying is correct, someone should probably delete that information from Meteor Garden. I don't feel comfortable doing it because I don't know enough about the topic(s). Whatever404 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested, there are still two mentions of a Philippine version in Meteor_Garden#Trivia. Whatever404 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To refactor another editors talk page? [[19]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the situation if you wish, however the prevailing opinion has been if you make 60,000 edits it's ok to discount others polite opinion because "they have bit a newbie (once) and have poor grammer." This wasn't a personal issue but a disturbing attitude trend.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, I see that you have deleted the page Nova 5 and the pages of its inventors. You have provided the reason as G11 G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The robot is not for sale and its inventors are not selling any robotic equipment or vehicles either. The robot is currently being tested by local police in Calgary, Canada. These pages were previously contested for a deletion but the problem was resolved as the pages were edited and revised to fall under encyclopedic standards. The pages were still being edited and updated up until their deletion. Please advise. Thank you. Scifi20 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the Nova 5 article; but the "articles" about the Khaleds were shamelessly promotional puff pieces and cannot be restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've revamped the whole article and removed the tags. Please let me know if you have any concerns. I will be including more references soon and I will continue to update it regularly. As for the Khaleds, I will recreate the pages once I can obtain proper biographies from the inventors. Scifi20 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That would mean rather a lot of verifiability and reliable-sources problems if the bios were obtained from the subjects. Also: what is your connection with the Khaleds and their company? To an outsider, it looks considerably like some kind of conflict of interest problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was a councilor at DeVry Calgary and I acted as a mentor to the Khaled brothers throughout the making of their project. I have no relation or connection to their company. To my knowledge, the company is a non-profit organization funded by the government. Scifi20 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just heads up on what I did here since you A7ed and it was immediately re-created. Had been long standing re-direct, someone came in and decided to overwrite with spam. While I think your A7 was a legit, I think a re-direct is fine and have restored that. If you disagree on the re-direct, you can delete it. I'm not fussed, but we both agree it doesn't need its own article. StarM 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that did a speedy deletion on storefrontbacktalk. You should have at least put a speedy deletion tag on it so the matter could have be discussed on some level. The article is quoted in two other articles. A hangon probably could have saved it. Americasroof (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've userfied this to User talk:Americasroof/StorefrontBacktalk, I agree with you that it doesn't look like it is notable, but maybe this editor can find some sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be User:Americasroof/StorefrontBacktalk? User:Americasroof is an editor I trust, unlike the original COI spammer; and I wish him/her luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to reintroduce the article unless it is clear it will pass the now increased scrutiny. I don't want to waste a lot of time on this. A lot of mainstream media quotes the site which has a niche in reporting on technology at retail store. The site does actual interviews and doesn't just reguergitate other sites. Here's a google. It has been at the forefront of the reporting on the Albert Gonzalez case (and the reason I'm even discussing it). Will saying it is widely reported by mainstream media and listing some of the links meet your notability concerns? Americasroof (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your username block of User:Holocausttaskforce. For what it's worth in the event a similar situation arises again, given the nature of this organization and the obvious good-faith nature of the contributions, I would have rather seen an attempt to discuss the situation with the user prior to blocking. Just a thought. I've left a note on the user's talkpage which I hope you will find unobjectionable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the block as well. You probably saw that on their talk page I mentioned the possible problem with the user name (just below the welcome message I left), and although I can understand the principle behind blocking the account, I feel that the user should have been given an opportunity to respond to the advice to change their user name. I placed that advice a few minutes after the user's last contribution, so it is possible that they are offline and have not had the chance to read the message and try to change their user name. I know you are a much more experienced editor than I am, but my impression was that we give users the opportunity to sort out problems themselves - if they don't (or actively refuse to) then they can be blocked. Is there some policy or guideline that says that a user should be blocked before given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the problem? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talkpage, and for explaining your reasoning. I understand it, even if I'm not 100% I agree with it in this particular instance . -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you have them on your watch list, but they have request an unblock so that they can put in a change-name request. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment you made on my talk page. As I said to Modernist, this was not a planned retirement, and it was only an escalating incident that pushed me in this direction. Alas. Thanks again. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you pulled links off this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_letter_writers

• Rudy Schumann - author of The Rudy Letters

-

• John J Marley and his wife Gloria have a series of hilarious letters on their website. www.imherhusband.talktalk.net To quote the Alfa Romeo forum "It's not often that you can get such a moment of pure joy as reading the replies from Virgin and the Met Office".

-

• Christopher L. Jorgensen has a website showcasing the letters he writes to luminaries and companies with their responses. www.jackassletters.com

At the time I added the link to my site I did not know this was in violation of the rules, so I am fine with the removal of my own site, but I am unclear why the other two came off. You obviously spend a lot more time on here than I do (so if this is the wrong place to contact you, or if I am making some other error, let me know), so I figure there's going to be a reason that makes sense, but these three links (including mine) seem to fall within the scope of that page. What am I missing?

Christopher L. Jorgensen (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I get the argument for "notability," but in this case that page is a list of people who write spoof/hoax letters. On the notability page there is also a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules It seems to me, the best argument for reinstating some of those links (I agree not all), is that the page was a great resource for finding this material. Due to the nature of the words "hoax" or "spoof" simple google searches return poor results. Having this page as a resource is helpful. It was also a lot funnier perviously (though that's not an argument in favor of keeping some of the links).

I admit I have an interest in this subject, but I am actually glad you removed my site, since an unbiased addition would be better. Still, I think your edits were a bit too brutal. Many of those links were quality links and well within the subject. There's not tons of people doing this, so excluding any from the list, unless spammy or of questionable quality seems wrong to me. But that's just me. Christopher L. Jorgensen (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. The arguments that you find a given list useful or interesting are not considered valid arguments for why this information about non-notable people needs to be in Wikipedia. There is nothing in the world preventing you from setting up your own website about hoax/spoof letterwriters, websites, etc.; but the Wikimedia Foundation is under no obligation to play host for it. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Orangemike … I have updated my biography, and thought I'd ping you to check out the changes. :-) Happy Editing! — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) _{05:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)}

Thnx fer the cleanups and cats … even if it's just putting some lipstick on a pig. :-) — 138.88.43.201 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I just found the names of my maternal grandfather's parents, John and Christina Greenfied, so I updated my famly tree… they both died before I was born, so I never knew them. — 138.88.43.201 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike...just curious what your motivation was for deleting the SenSage page? Are you planning to delete all pages that include software such as Linux and MS Windows? I do not work for that company but I was researching that company for a possible purchase. Thanks for making my life a little harder today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.197.9 (talk • contribs)

Despite the tone of this unsigned note, I went back and reviewed the article in question (SenSage). I decided that I and the nominator had been wrong: it could be despammed; so I restored it, and have had my first stab at despamming it. A lot of the "references" were to press releases, and will have to be replaced. Thanks for the learning experience, anonymous and unsigned IP. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I'd like to know why you deleted my page. I am not trying to promote for this show I am simply providing a background of the history of how it was conceived. Many shows have similar information and I am not trying to sell it onto anyone, simply giving a background of information. Please restore the page 'Fucking up Everything'. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy FUE (talk • contribs)

Apologies, that looked like pure vandalism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted? I found a lot of the information on the page useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.224.173 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcyclist). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i read that talk page before i made my last comment. Those comments are more than a year old, and are reffering to a previous version of that article. Did you base the deletion on those comments alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.224.173 (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to make the John Coswill entry more accurate and provide a current picture of his face (unlike the one posted of his back). I don't get paid to do this, so I don't see the conflict of interest. However, I am considered to be a historian in regard to the Beach Boys and thought Wikipedia would appreciate the constructive edits, including the unlimited usage of the image uploaded. musicbbbtom (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2009

Mike, I wasn't even aware that there was a prod on the article (I'm guessing prod since there was no AfD) about the Surenos. They definately are notable, one of the largest criminal gangs in the US. Could you put the article somewhere that I could work on it in my spare time and get it up to standards in terms of reliable sourcing and notability demonstration? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• ok, I just realized it was speedy deleted. I can't remember off the top of my head what, if any sources, the article had, but I am certain I can establish their notability for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• The Surenos (Sur 13) are intense rivals of the Notenos (Nortes, represented by 14). Essentially California is divided in half (at Bakersfield), but if you'll notice, the sources I'm thorwing up here quickly are from all around the US, not just Cali, demonstrating they are more than localized. Here are a few quick sources that will show you I'm not off my rocker when I tell you I'll be able to establish notability: I especially like this one, where the St. Paul, MN city council went to court in an attempt to ban the Surenos from the annual Cinco de Mayo festival: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks Mike. Yeah, it definately needs work. I'll see what I can do with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have updated my user page in light of your suggestion that I list some of my biases. Well here's a start (more to come). Please let me know what you think.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for the tinfoil-hat brigade. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently my name means that on does not have to AGF : [32].--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ty. Sorry that I had to bother you, but it seemed egregious enough.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the recent discussion at Talk:Chicago-style_pizza#Poor_.22flat_pizza.22_reference? I'm in what looks like a possible edit war with an anonymous user. Shsilver (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this minor detail. I was thinking about writing my own article, somewhere where I could keep resources and things. If people vandalised it then it would present a problem. That's why I asked if a private page could be made. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, the first time I saw the article was worst than now , but is true that the beach is a hotpoint, with lovely hotels, resorts, and small pousadas (something like B&B). Its also true, that has been elected for 8 times in a row as the best brazilian beach by a specialized travel magazine. That's why I have included one photo in the resort article, because this beach is considered a resort beach.(Angenhariaus (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

This is the page for a research project -- not a commercial product. So how you can call it 'advertising' is beyond me. Please restore the deleted page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.193.158 (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Promotion" is by no means limited to commercial products. Wikipedia can't be used to promote your research project, your campus club, your political party, your elementary-school soccer team, your girlfriend's smile, your church charity or the new word you made up at the bar last night. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is not 'advertising'.. it describes a university research project -- not a commercial product. Also, anyone interested in RFID security and privacy considers the RFID Guardian to be notable. So please restore the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.193.158 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick search of Google News shows that 2007 and before it is mentioned as a prototype - and most mentions are at most 2 or 3 sentences, or are on blogs. After 2007, all the references are single-sentence mentions. I can see no evidence of notability for this product. I didn't see the article, however a quick search for possible references that could be used show no third-party independent significant verification of notability, so I would say that OrangeMike was correct to delete it, as it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if you can provide good references showing its notability (mentioned in reliable sources), then list them here - then OrangeMike can take that into consideration. However, bear in mind that blogs cannot be used as sources, the research project's web pages are not independent, and that the criteria for inclusion is significant references - a couple-of-sentence reference would not meet the criteria. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you have deleted the entry for Dartford Living. Could it be restored fully and we'll delete the offending parts? ie the parts deemed to be advertising. We have tried to model our entry on other newspapers and magazines in the UK.

Regards

AbdelHK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhk (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Le Zombie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No attempt to argue for any notability, no independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate notability. Just some fanzine.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Oh crap. I thought you weren't supposed to remove AfD templates. There is something about the deletion process that they create other pages and removing them leaves orphaned "delete" pages and such. But this says to remove the template. What happened to discussion? How is anyone supposed to weigh in on the subject if the only mention of it is removed from the page? Padillah (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is another attempt to delete the Worldcon GoH category. Since you participated in the last discussion, I thought you might be interested.Shsilver (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up on Story points. An editor at WP:REFUND asked for this to be restored and a {{hangon}} tag had been added to the article before deletion, so I'm seeing this as a doubly contested prod and have therefore restored the article. I advised the requester to address the issues in your prod tag before someone takes it to AfD, which, naturally, you are more than welcome to do. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Le Zombie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Zombie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DreamGuy (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And he now claims that Warner's All Our Yesterdays doesn't meet RS. Shsilver (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your advice at the help desk regarding the Mistress Absolute article; I just wanted to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Feedback#Mistress_Absolutes_Entry. As you can see, Malstrome has been given advice and chosen not to take it. As I noted, even if she took all my advice, it still probably wouldn't be acceptable, but there's no evidence that she attempted to address the suggestions I gave.SPhilbrickT 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on Zenfolio stub at my talk page. I appreciate very much. Thank you. ESCapade (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. [33] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Orange Mike, thank you for your kind and gentle advice re: my preferences. I'm so new at this I sometimes feel like I'm navigating a new planet! You mentioned in my talk that I should set my preferences to email this user, which I have done. You suggested this because I'd included my real email in my message to Friday correct? I think he deleted it very soon after which was nice of him. BTW, WTF are spiders? Some kind of trolling bot that searches for content such as email addresses? Thnks.

BTW, I'm getting ready to upload my first article draft into my sandbox. I'd totally appreciate any guidance you could give and will let you know when it goes up.

THANK YOU!Tanyavansoest (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, please reactivate this page you nominated for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nguyen Paul is a notable social activist from the Jane and Finch neighborhood. Supporting links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERTLIJCPYbk and http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lostinthestruggle/filmmaker.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.114.20 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 September 2009

There's an anon that's been vandalizing an article but never quite let themselves get blocked. They manage to annoy until they get 3 or 4 warnings and then they pull back until the next month. Should I still report this to AN/V? How long do they get to pull this stunt until they get blocked? Padillah (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could take a look at this article and see if it is notable/good/objective enough to be posted. I used other Marching Band pages as a basis, and judging by them, it appears notable enough (I am aware of the "Other Stuff Exists" rule). There is also a possible COI here. Could you please look at it and edit it if necessary? If there's a better process for doing this, please let me know.Kevinbrogers (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that the page is nominated for deletion. Also spotted someone removed the notability tag. Two questions - how do you advise I make the page more notable and why is it nominated for deletion?--Alexanderryland (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. (BTW, Irish dance is awesome) Maybe the WP:CLUB rules should be re-written... it makes it sound like you can create articles over pretty much any organization at any school. For what it's worth, the band doesn't compete in Florida; they are invited by Disney every three years to play at whichever park is there (I always forget). I suppose that's still not notable enough, but oh well. Would it be okay to post parts of the article on the school's article? Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Removed the bits where I was uncivil. Didn't think before submitting. Again, sorry. D: _Met^ty 18:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Orangemike, responding to your response to me...I still feel that the incident that occurred at Cracker Barrel, given the restaurant's background and history, is very noteworthy. You first responded to my edit by saying that the incident could have happened anywhere, however, here in Atlanta, talk radio and the newspaper are abuzz about this incident and the thinking that the incident ties in with the company's background(not merely my personal hypothesis, as you put it). Even if just a hypothesis, it is the hypothesis of a very strong contingent, again, making the incident and the sentiment of several concerned citizens very noteworthy. As it is, if someone were curious to know what all the hubbub is about and they went to Wikipedia to check, they'd still be clueless because you did not allow the edit. I'm not saying that Cracker Barrel caused the incident but the fact that the incident occurred there, again, given the company's history, and the company's extraordinary reaction to the incident (banning the man from its restaurants nationwide) would be both informative and interesting to Wiki readers. This was a fact-based entry with no personal commentary or indulgence which makes me feel that there is a bit of protectionism going on here. Another user opined that you might be willing to suggest a rewording or reworking of the edit but I don't see you having an open mind about this at all.Rlang5990 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

IIt doesn't matter what's interesting. We have to make sure whatever we say is properly sourced. If we can't find that it can't be here....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The only edit I've done is include the well known fact that Zinn was a "revisionist" historian. Why do you have a problem with that? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded to Ludvikus' reasonable query on his talk page, q.v. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There is that confusion (with Holocaust deniers) - but it's the fault of Wikipedia in failing to the appropriate distinctions. Instead of reverting, why don't you help me make the distinction which is necessary. Nevertheless, you agree with me that Zinn was a "revisionist." If there's a confusion - the way to proceed is through DISAMBIGUATION. Please help me do that - if that is what you're concerned with. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed your helpfulness there. Good work, in my opinion. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

But this is just a "stub." I think your labeling is premature. Why don't you help me expand the article. You know that Zinn was a "revisionist." And you also know that this term is to be distinguished from the "Holocaust denier" "historical revisionist." So your labeling of the article is not helpful. Please remove it - and help expand the article instead. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your concern over the confusion (you've described) should be addressed to this article - which I think requires Disambiguation. I wonder what would happen if you made the observation regarding that confusion on that article? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed your "foot-tracks there too. Good work - in my opinion. But I wonder if your editing will be reverted by another? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen your foot-tracks there too. Good work. I agree with what your doing there. 99.9%. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken in your view that the proposed legislation was not approved and passed into law. Here's the opening text of the version as allegedly approved by the governor of Florida:

New Florida Legislation on Content of History and Other Classes

CHAPTER 2006-74

House Bill No. 7087

Approved by the Governor June 5, 2006.

Section 22. Section 1003.42, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:

1003.42 Required instruction.—

…

(2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following:

(a) The history and content of the Declaration of Independence, including national sovereignty, natural law, self-evident truth, equality of all persons, limited government, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, and how they form it forms the philosophical foundation of our government.

(b) The history, meaning, significance, and effect of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and amendments thereto, with emphasis on each of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights and how the constitution provides the structure of our government.

(c)(b) The arguments in support of adopting our republican form of government, as they are embodied in the most important of the Federalist Papers.

(c) The essentials of the United States Constitution and how it provides the structure of our government.

(d) Flag education, including proper flag display and flag salute.

(e) The elements of civil government, including the primary functions of and interrelationships between the Federal Government, the state, and its counties, municipalities, school districts, and special districts.

(f) The history of the United States, including the period of discovery, early colonies, the War for Independence, the Civil War, the expansion of the United States to its present boundaries, the world wars, and the civil rights movement to the present. American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.

(g)(f) The history of the Holocaust (1933-1945), the systematic, planned annihilation of European Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of humanity, to be taught in a manner that leads to an investigation of human behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions.

(h)(g) The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society.

. . .

• --Ludvikus (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • And here's the source to the complete text of said law: [34]. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The thought-control agenda is clearly there; but the words revisionist and revisionism no longer appear anywhere in the text. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Good observation. Nevertheless, the discourse regarding this legislation did involve the term(s) you cite. But that's what needs to be clarified. But I'm not even writing about that so far. Here's my exact source regarding the historians I'm interested in writing about in this article: [35]. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• And here's another source for the American "revisionist" classification I'm interested in writing about - the reference is available online at: [36] --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How does one call for an expert? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You tag the article thus: {{Expert-subject|History}}! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Much appreciated!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's in consistent with WP rules, but I always thought the above two needed Disambiguation. Isn't the purpose of a DAB page precisely that of avoiding ambiguity? I think the two are easily and often confused. So I though I'd pro you to consider this matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That I think could also use your constructive input. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you justify why EmuCraze was deleted? Clearly I followed Wikipedia guidelines, no? I had included a description that was more encyclopedia like, as well as historical accomplishments. Please forgive me if I seem harsh, I mean every bit of respect,but I am confused to why you deleted the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdkcheatz (talk • contribs)

Well, let's see: it's an advertisement for a website with no evidence or assertion of notability. You wrote the article. You are the founder of the website. You refer to yourself only by handle, with no indication of who you are or why your website should be taken note of. Is that a start? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not see the relevance in specifying whom has created the article as this has nothing to do with site notability. Perhaps I was not clear enough on specifying evidence, or maybe its accomplishments are not qualified to be mentioned on Wikipedia as an independent article? Again... Please do not feel hate towards me, I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor. FYI I like your style of arguing, it was most pleasing to see a good case I could not annihilate so easily and if at all. I would be honored to have some deep discussions either via msn messenger or email, if you are interested, please feel free to add me: lynskeyb[at_symbol]hotmail[dot]com or email me: owner[at_symbol]emucraze[dot]com Mdkcheatz (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I take that as a no mister orange mike?

The McLean Group article was recently deleted by Orangemike. I am confused as to why the article was removed. How might it still be included in this valuable resource? I would truly appreciate any suggestions as I have spent much time composing a bibliographical reference of the firm and its members’ historical importance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemerchent (talk • contribs) — Kemerchent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:47, 23 September 2009

I think the above article would benefit by your contribution - since it's obviously affected by your work on historical revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work there. However, I just added the section for the stub, Revisionist historians (American).

Please check it out - maybe it's too long as I've written it. But I could not find any way yet to make it shorter, and be informative in a controversial area. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. I have changed your prod on Tania Doko to a redirect to her band Bachelor Girl. I belive this addresses all issues. Let me know if i erred. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. None of the Tania Doko article has been incorporated into the Bachelor Girl article. Instead of making the information more succinct, all you have done is delete information from Wikipedia. Good work. Benrylan

If you don't like the fact of Zinn being one of the revisionist historians (American) being in the "lede" paragraph, put it were you think it should go - I must tell you that your simple deletion is extremely upsetting to me, and it makes want to leave Wikipedia for some time. I think it's too easy to simply delete. I think you should reconsider your action. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

... was recreated by User:Evosoho. Care to delete it again? Thanks, Nathan ^T 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, you just deleted Fark but Talk:Fark didn't get deleted, so when I moved Fark.com to Fark the talk page couldn't be moved. Now it's all mixed up (my mistake). Can you fix this? Noisalt (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I sorted this one out. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely appreciated. That's the second time I completely screwed up a page move; I think it's time I looked into simpler hobbies! —Noisalt (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article was tagged for deletion at 15:16. You speedy deleted it at 15:17, which seems a bit fast considering it wasn't an attack page. I attempted to userfy it at 15:54, and you speedy deleted it again at 15:54, as I was userfying it. It's not a big deal as I was eventually able to userfy it, but it might be good to check the page history a bit closer before deleting. Thanks and Best regards. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this pages needs to be deleted from Wikipedia. It's "original research." But I forgot how to post & flag an article for proposed deletion. Can you remind me? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've turned it into a WP "list." So maybe you might want to consider your deletion nomination. Apparently, some have worked hard to compile the list. I got rid of the "garbage" word "global" which is pompous and useless - what empire worthy of the name is not "global"? --Ludvikus (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for re-organizing User:Clou2epsteins talk page, it was confusing me mightily :D --Arkelweis (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I've got my first article draft up for review on my talk page and I would really appreciate if you could take a look and give me any feedback, comments, advice that would help get this draft ready and worthy of publication. It's still a work in progress as I'm currently looking how to upload a PDF and get the references linked properly, but any thoughts would be most welcome.

Thank you in advance,

Tanyavansoest (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mate, you're the fastest editor-administrator on wikipedia! It took you less than 10 secs to delete an article I marked for speedy deletion! You're the best! Cheers--Karljoos (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is necessarily a good thing, considering it doesn't give anyone any time to place a {{hangon}} tag. Of course, if it's an attack page, then great. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course I was talking about new pages started by "wiki-vadals" ;)!--Karljoos (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Karl, the Spork has an extremely important point. There is no value in speedy deletions if they are not in fact valid subjects of that process; in fact, invalid deletions injure the project. I'm proud to say that I've saved at least ten invalidly-nominated articles from speedy deletion today alone. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, I've redirected this article to the main article about the city itself, and left a notice on the creator's talk page. As this circumvents the need for deletion, I find it preferable; however, the creator of the article has undone the redirect several times. If you see that the redirect has been undone again, I'd ask that you replace it. Thanks. GlassCobra 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently added a new photo to the Sureños article . I was wondering if the photo is appropriate. If users or you don’t like the photo. I can Upload a new version of the file. I have more photos just like that one, but there all deferent. --Zink Dawg (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for your quick reply and constructive feedback. I'll remove the social media links immediately. To be honest, I followed the example of the World Economic Forum entry with regard to YouTube and other social media channel listings (you may like to refer to their references 10-19 which are all conference social media channels). They have a strong article which hasn't been flagged for any promotional content and so I made the conclusion it was acceptable to list these. It was by no means an attempt to bypass the non-promotional content guideline.

I will work on the tone and content to help create an entry that doesn't "read like a press release" and will include more secondary references as they arise. In addition to this, is there anything else that I can consider doing that might help get this article to where it needs to be?

Thank you so much. Tanyavansoest (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I'm curious what you think about including an image of the SIEW program grid into the mix? I have a feeling you're going to say this is too promotional, and that I shouldn't base my decisions on what other articles may have gotten away with, but I've seen similar content that wasn't flagged on other articles the World Economic Forum yet providing another example of that. So, long story short: your thoughts? Tanyavansoest (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say definitely not. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. I think the important considerations right now are to get the editorial content where it needs to be. Any t houghts on the revised version and also on the World Economic Forum article's use of social media promotion? Tanyavansoest (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to DDtrac has been removed. It was removed by 147.153.99.32 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 147.153.99.32 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Hello. Since you were the admin that did the recent pagemove in good faith, I thought I should point out that the move is actually not uncontroversial. Consumer Watchdog was originally the title of the article on the Botswanan organization with that name. There was an attempt first to speedy it, and then to AFD it, at the same time as creation of an article about the USA organization. A few months have passed, and the names are being swapped around again[37], [38], which I have reverted since no consensus has been gained for the change, and per WP:CSB both organizations should be treated equally on WP. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that "both organizations be treated equally" at wp:csb. The organization based in the United States is, by far, the more common usage (see [39], [40] for the ratio that tends to hold through with Google News Archive searches and elsewhere). However, you have contested it, which does indeed make it no longer an "uncontroversial move," so I will start a discussion on the matter shortly. user:J aka justen (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply back at the relevant section on my talk page: I don't want to inflict a long discussion on Orangemike's talk page, as he was only briefly involved. Orangemike, please feel free to join in there, if this interests you in the slightest. MuffledThud (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I have sent an e-mail regarding the article LabelEd which was deleted recently on the grounds of copyright infringement, however copyright permission has been e-mailed to the appropriate address ([email protected]). It would be great to have the article restored if possible. Samholman (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Orange mike you deleted the page titled Moses (Donair). While I believe it was an interesting article about a part of tokyo not many people are of, I understand your decision to do so. I have one request - can you provide me with a copy of the content before it was deleted? Please email to [neonfreon] AT [gmail] . [com] - no []'s.

Thanks mike. --71.42.191.58 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Epstein School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You don't suppose Clou2epstein (talk · contribs) and Akidd71 (talk · contribs) are the same person, do you? Rees11 (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike - first of all I hope I am not breaching etiquette but you blocked by account so fast i couldn't say anything. I tried doing the request an unblock but it has already been two days and I want to see if you will lift the block on my account since you put it there. i guess i was not thinking how my edits to the cibcwm article would be viewed. i probably could have chosen a better user name than canadian imperial to make those edits but it seems like i was blocked for the wrong reasons. i did work for cibc wood gundy / cibc oppenheimer in the 1990s and thought the article was not very good. i was accused of including promotional material but actually if you read what i wrote it was all historical and really balanced – half of it was about the decline of cibc. i have tried editing wikipedia before without logging in and have never really had a problem but this time i wanted to create an account. it has not worked out as well as i had hoped. take a look at what i wrote and see if it is really that bad. i would like to try to give it another shot. i am still learning but i think i get the basic idea of what you are trying to do. i tried to pick another username that would be less offensive. And i am canadian so how bad can i be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retired Canadian (talk • contribs)

This post is talking about Canadian Imperial (talk · contribs). He posted a similar version on this ANI thread. Tim Song (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Aoife de Barra page? Silly—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.233.112 (talk • contribs)

Because it's the name of a non-notable teenager? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike, in your last message to me you said you had "userfied" my article draft which now sits off my "mytalk" page. Thanks for doing this, I'm just not clear how this fits into my overall account b/c when I go to my "user page" I don't see it connected there. I'm confused where it sits! I thought that drafts needed to be created either in a sandbox or a user page...which it is, but I can only link to it from the link to you left me in your comment. Thanks in advance for clarifying. Tanyavansoest (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's at User:Tanyavansoest/Singapore International Energy Week. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

....hmmm...because he was never charged or convicted of a crime? --emerson7 17:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So what? Nobody on the face of the planet has any reason to doubt that he committed the crimes; indeed, he boasted of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"So what?" ...lol...what kinda of argument is that? nevertheless, despite one's personal view, one cannot be tagged with legal term without due process. NPOV dictates a less impassioned approach. --emerson7 18:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You placed a {{wikify}} tag on the George Brumder article. The article looks to be in pretty good shape to me so I'm a little unclear on what wikification is needed. I wonder if you could identify what additional work is needed. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Coproduction of public services by service users and communities has been removed. It was removed by Rd232 with the following edit summary '(rm PROD - not a fork - see Talk:Coproduction (social science))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rd232 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. I've seen you out and about multiple times, and you're clearly one of those who is avid against spam. It's something that I feel strongly about, too, and I sometimes search phrases like "we provide" to eliminate blatant advertising, or patrol CAT:PROMO.

I'm a member of WP:WPSPAM, but as it stands, that project basically does not deal with the sneaky "talented musician" prose that's very prevalent. They mainly deal with spam link reports and such. I want to start some sort of task force that can address this problem, because we really need one. I slapped together this list of search phrases a few months ago, and that's the general idea; alleviating the positive bias problems rather than just spamlinks. Ideas would be great. JamieS93 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)