User talk:Orangemike/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

A guy called Daytona is quibbling with me and has put two meaty items on my Talk Page, about Unsourced Material and The Duke of Richmond. You helped me once before remove stuff from my talk page (I don't seem to be able to do it) so if you could help me again, I'd be most grateful. Best wishes. Millbanks (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, would you spend some time in adapting this to a "more encyclopedic tone"? if this is the problem, I am sorry it remains like it is now. Thanks. --Frankesko (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clarify why this is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, I merged all the books into Template:Family Guy as it didn't seem worthy having a template just for the books, thus, we do not need that anymore... Qst 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a technicality; the reason you gave is not one of the valid categories of speedy deletion. "Deleted at author's request" (db-author) would be; just tag it that way, and the next editor doing speedy patrol will kill it for you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike what is it going to take to allow ref. to actual genealogy of my family that includes Alonso Fernández de Lugo? I did nothing but place valid ref's to Lugo history and genealogy. Do I have to also place a letter from the King of Spain Palace to prove my information?

Let me know what will it take.... tlconan

Ok Mike I will post another website Ref. of which is not gov't by me or my family. Nevertheless its the same information. Regards tlconan Also Known As RED LUGO Jan. 8th —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlconan (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike, Will it help If I add you to the Knights Order of Lugo, the order in which I'm the inheritor? Don't blame me for trying........ tlconan

Reliable sources: not personal webpages, but published information, from people without a conflict of interest, that can be verified. Links such as you continued to post, that link to personal websites and the like, are inappropriate and will continue to be deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have read WP:SPAM and taken note of the 14 criteria listed under "links to be avoided". I don't consider my activities to consist of spamming. The individual links I have added are, as far as I can see, all relevant to the subject matter and improve wikipedia by giving access to a body of writing.

I'm not sure that linking to multiple articles in a journal, which necessarily covers many different subject areas in order to add to the sum of human knowledge, is quite the same as linking to a website selling medication.

In general the pages I edit involve the theory of the far left. Subjects such as the Trotskyist theory of the united front or the left wing party Respect are, naturally, theorised by left wing journals such as International Socialism and by writers such as Leon Trotsky. It seems perfectly sensible to link to these sources, so that people can see for themselves how the theory has been developed and expounded. I don't think this detracts from neutrality, any more than linking to the Principia Mathematica would detract from the neutrality of an article on Newton's laws of motion, or a link to Prufrock would detract from a page on modernist poetry.

If you have in mind particular examples of where I've added material not useful and relevant, please tell me so I can remove it and gain a better idea of what is and isn't acceptable. If I've completely misunderstood the point of wikipedia, let me know and I'll stop using it...

Piquant (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit history seems to show a pattern: every time a new issue of the ISJ comes out, you go through it and link at least one Wikipedia article to pretty much every article, review, etc. in that issue. This shows a strong tendency to push your point of view into every topic under the sun: one form of spamming. When you link to an article in a journal such as this with a very strong ideology, and don't clearly indicate this in the references, you start looking like somebody eagerly violating our neutral point of view policies. Not all wisdom is contained in the ISJ. We can't allow links to every article in every magazine on the planet, even if we restricted ourselves to magazines in English. If you want your links to stay, you have to persuade your fellow editors that this link (clearly identified as to source, etc.) adds something serious to the discussion of this particular topic that no other link will add. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to take this on board. I'll try to confine myself more to adding specific references to articles, rather than external links in future. I'm relatively inexperienced on wikipedia, so I appreciate your comments and advice.

Might I reiterate, though, that there are specific instances where the "ISJ" does actually contain quite a lot of the wisdom (or at least that wisdom that is freely available online), precisely because it is one of the largest circulation and most venerable theoretical journals of the far left (New Left Review, Science and Society, Historical Materialism and the rest are also important, but charge for internet access). There will be specific topics, worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia, where an editor has to look to and reference this kind of material in order to write (I gave the example of the United Front above, it's equally true of, say, the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to fall, the base and superstructure analogy in history writing, or the development of the post-Seattle anticapitalist movement). Piquant (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember, just because a given journal is not available online is no reason not to cite it. There is no obligation to restrict yourself to linkable references. I would also request that you closely read the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial to understand our Neutral Point of View policy, one of the core elements in the Wikipedia project. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (one of those Milwaukee sewer socialists)

I do realise that open source journals aren't more citable or credible, my point is that I can't afford to buy them, so am unlikely to have them to hand to cite them. (Given a choice between two equally good sources, I would choose the open one to cite in a wikipedia article, or in general, on the basis that more people can read it for themselves and decide whether the position it expresses is correct or not...) Perfectly happy for others to replace my sources with better ones they have access to. I had already read the NPOV tutorial you suggest. I especially liked the section on Moral and Political Points of View. I certainly don't think my (distinctly minority) political views, or those of ISJ authors, should dominate wikipedia articles, but they deserve to be included in balanced articles. Piquant (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a first time user and you have deleted my page above.

I would be grateful for the reason for deletion as the text of the article is by me while all the pics are public domain and could be found on the web, all almost 400 years old.

regards

Bebadda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebadda (talk • contribs) 19:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The text was completely copied from somebody else's website. We respect copyright here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a copywrite violation as I retain copywrite and am the author. Please reinstate the article. regards--Bebadda (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken to talk page for article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, You deleted the page above on January 8 with your note CSD G11.

I would be very grateful for your criteria for this speedy deletion while I had refered several artists' site to follow Wikipedia rules.

Please take a look at a few examples of other artist sites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93lafur_El%C3%ADasson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mach

88.171.125.62 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh.Hirakawa (talk • contribs) 10:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken to talk page of author; note COI problems here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and I would have liked a precision of your criteria. The page you deleted talks about an environment artist who deals with our environmental concerns - an non-lucrative artistic wave. COI criteria seem to be difficult to be defined - you would like to ignore there are many pages talking about very famous commercial companies related to the interests? Sh.Hirakawa —Preceding comment was added at 19:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please kindly delete what you did yesterday. It's horrible. I regret nothing friendly or smart has been proposed by you. Sh.Hirakawa —Preceding comment was added at 11:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Does this mean that I should abandon the article I'm writing about the hot dogs at the stand down the street? They have a sign that says they're world famous! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag-team accusation game. DanielEng engages in POV-based censorship, and now starts dragging everyone and his uncle in to gang up on me. Grow up, read the damned edits, and get a clue. I will NOT allow you or any other person on this site to engage in bullying or other intimidation just for putting documented FACTS in entry pages. If you're going to presume to use administrative powers, then you have an OBLIGATION to wield them responsibly, not just like NAZI storm-trooper. Enough of the threats before even ASKING ME what is going on. I MARKED THE PAGE with the NPOV tag, and even THAT is getting reverted...not by me, but the person who is making the all the accusation. I will NOT stand for bullying tactics by any administrator. 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akulkis (talk • contribs)

Remove spam instead of deleting? :-p Do we do that with articles too? -- Mentifisto 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, maybe you should salt Dead Baby Bikes. They've been recreating it for two years now. -- Mentifisto 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, so, how come you only blanked the above userpage and deleted the recent one? Both were ads. -- Mentifisto 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I try to figure out whether a user is merely clueless, or actively trying to use us as an advertising venue. I can't feel too guilty if I erred a bit on the side of mercy on Tarema. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, that's reasonable. Thanks for responding. -- Mentifisto 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So how long have you been a DDR player? Your definition of what constitutes a "gaming guide" doesn't make sense. I'm suppose to leave out information about the game just because it tells the reader more than they previously knew? Then the whole article is a game guide. The original version of the article was not in violation of wiki policy, at least not in regards to being a strategy guide for gamers to get that upper edge. The new version was even further from objection. So why are you trying to negotiate as much information off the article as possible? Again, how long have you played and been involved with the Dance Dance Revolution series? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So if a video game manual said "Running will help you win" and the article says "This is a game where you run", then it's a game guide? The sentences you keep trying to delete are explaining what the game labels "winning" and "losing". Telling the reader how many levels there are in Pac Man doesn't help him win the game.

Here's a brief introduction to DDR game play. The letter grades are your score, you only get to see your letter grade after the song is over and there's nothing you can do. Your numerical score is different, you see that during play. However neither of those are going to help you if you can't step on the arrows correctly. Knowing what letter grade you can get won't change a thing, you still have to be able to play the game right. The article explains the premise of game play, and how the game responds. It is not a guide of any sort, you can call it a manual if you want, this is after all an encyclopedia. But if you continue to edit war over this before discussing your obvious POV in the talk page, porperly, then it will continue to get dealt with according to wiki guidelines. Your edits are quickly approaching intentional vandalism. Talk first, the page will still be there when an agreement is reached. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. :) I believe magazines would be excluded by the section of A7 that reads "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." (Which, in the interest of full disclosure, I note that I helped to craft at talk:csd.) In case you're interested in CSD policy development, I'll note that there is currently a movement underway to remove organizations and companies from A7 and further restrict its application. I'm not personally involved in that one; at least, not yet. That conversation is happening here. Cheers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if you could please leave a message for the uploader of Image:Amero_commemorative.jpg‎, which you speedily deleted. The editor in question is new, and I do not want him or her to feel like I am `picking` on them. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"...was deemed too short to qualify even as a stub.." Why on earth? Let me make this clear: First, there was a claim to notability: 50,000 adherents isn't small. Second, there was ample context: a Calvinist church in South Africa. Third, there was already an internal link. Fourth, I'm obviously not an SPA, an IP, or any sort of crank about African churches. Fifth, half an hour from creation is hardly long enough for you to deem that the article creator doesnt intend to add to it. What criterion for speedy deletion does this qualify under? The correct procedure: tag it for expansion or with a notability template, whatever your concern is. If eventually there's no response, prod it.

I'd like it restored so I can continue, please. Relata refero (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dustihowe made the speedy nomination as "no context". I agree, on reconsideration, perhaps an "unsourced" tag and a stub tag or two would have been a better route to take. I'm restoring it.--Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's big of you! Relata refero (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in having a look at it now; there's a (rather unpleasant) reason why it's particularly notable!

I'm taking off for a bit, but will return to fix the citation templates etc. Relata refero (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Orangemike, firstly please excuse if I'm making mistakes by posting here as I'm new to wikipedia. I wanted to ask about why the page on Abbas Hasan the Pakistani pop-singer was removed. He is a new up and coming artist and there is a lot of interest in him in local Pakistani press. He has received much acclaim and press. Will the article remain if I can provide additional information on his coverage and notability? I think it's fitting to have a page on this artist as his music is popular and he is set to take centre stage in the music scene in Lollywood.

Thanks,

Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimfan39 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

taken to her talk page --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted David Tal (historian)
. Thank you to finish the job and to delete David Tal and to move David Tal (politician).
Note that your attitude is pure vandalism and I think you should consider to modify the way you work on wikipedia.
You can put any comment : fr:Discussion Utilisateur:here Ceedjee

Don't worry.

But the article David Tal must be deleted; then David Tal (politician) moved to David Tal and finally David Tal (politician) deleted. Ceedjee (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I noticed your answer to this Help Desk question about uploading a new version of an image. You weren't correct when you said that Wikipedia has no concept of image versions. It is possible to use the 'Upload a new version of this file' to upload an image over the top of an existing image. This is useful to correct technical problems like brightness, or to add new information to a chart or graph. The 'File History' section of this image is a good example. Raven4x4x (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike. While the term NIMBY (and perhaps the absolute definition) may be fairly recent, the concept really isn't that new (depending on your point of view, of course). In fact, the Deerfield case was one of the earliest examples of NIMBYism, and the concept itself is discussed in the Rosen book quite a bit. That's why I included Deerfield in the "see also". I wasn't sure how best to create a section in the NIMBY article about this event, but it is historically important to the concept, so figured this was the next best thing. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I started an article on "Voice of the Retarded" and you speedily deleted it. I should think you would have somewhere noted reason for action and suggested how I could get an entry started. I put in a request for editorial help in writing it but can't find any responses. 'Sup?

The Voice of the Retarded is a long-established advocacy organization with a stable website http://www.vor.net and much influence in the field they serve. They are also quite controversial but are just as deserving of a place in Wikipedia as other advocacy groups for Persons With Disabilities.

Love26 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notification that I have submitted an incident at WP:AN/I in which you have been listed as being involved. Please review the report, and comment there as you deem appropriate. Thank-you, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some other admins have requested your consent to modify a block that you placed on Eonon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Please see the incident report linked above, and comment as appropriate. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have gone forward with the block modification since you appear to not be around. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I supported your redirect of "Franklin Coverup Hoax" to "Franklin Coverup Incident," which is far more neutral. I have no idea whether or not a hoax was involved. And I have no vested interest in the matter, other than a general desire that truth eventually prevails. What I cannot understand is why the obviously biased labeling of this story persists. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostle12 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How did you arrive at 3? Alatari (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was in Finding the Future:A Science Fiction Conversation with Forry Ackerman. Forry was in Amazon Women on the Moon (1987) with David Alan Grier; Grier was in The Woodsman (2004) with Bacon.

I need information explaning the rules of posting, Orange Mike email me infor at <redacted for privacy> Thanks tlconan —Preceding comment was added at 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that sock puppetry is a much better reason than inappropriate user name. Nothing obvious about the user name, whereas it's obviously a sock. But that's just little old me's opinion. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 17:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So what your sayinmg is that wp:stalk is OK, his repeaded 3RR is OK. And Slander and WP:RPA WP:HUSH WP:NPA WP:PA are all OK... Why not look into some of that Mr. Mike?--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've examined both of your edits to these articles for some time, and your assertion of slander, in particular, is simply without foundation. You are highly partisan, whereas I would class his attitude as skeptical: a much more useful attitude in an editor attempting to achieve a neutral point of view. (I have no idea who he supports in the 2008 race; your preference is obvious.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made my preference obvious for a reason. -No one can clame they don't know who I support. YOU also show your colors and they are NOT "orange". However I try to put in good faith edits, with information I read on line from MSM. My friend and others do not have NPOV. As well I do not try to slander other 2008 Candidates. (as of today I can not even put in even a single sentence with out a huge fight/drama?)--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Help me out? I'm the other side of this Duchamps_comb thing. What's the right next move here? Specifically: this WQA/3RR/ANI stuff seems petulant and I don't want to go there. I've asked other editors about the situation, and I haven't gotten a clear signal to back off from the article. I seem to be able to resolve things with User:Terjen and User:Buspar without drama.

Is the right thing for me to do to take a break from this article? Is there something else I can do to resolve the Duchamps_comb thing without "tattling" to the admins? I'm afraid I haven't helped the situation; the "you FREAK" comment followed an overly personal critique of a comment he wrote, where I made the mistake of calling his comment "untrustworthy".

Understand if you're too busy. Would love to hear if I'm part of the problem here.

--- tqbf 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have approached the entry from a neutral standpoint, and I don't give the gallery any special details that others like it don't either.

For example, please look at the Coppermine Photo Gallery entry. What is different from my entry as compared with this one? Why am I not able to describe a similar piece of software? What makes it not notable?

Thanks,

Aurachron (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Coppermine has also been nominated for deletion, for similar reasons. Also, note that "Lots of junk is on Wikipedia" is not considered a good argument for retention of an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi firstly I am new so forgive me if I 'state the bleeding obvious'

I am a little puzzled by your comments, as the article does not deal with any organization or competitors apart from in the history of recovery in the UK. Here it mentions the indisputable fact that the AA started the first national club, quickly followed by the Royal Automobile Club (There a reference to the RAC book on the subject at the bottom). Most of the article is about an industry that employs a couple of million people worldwide and the equipment they use. Lastly not knowing me I can understand how you can think a person can have a conflict of interested, but there are none here. I am retired and therefore do not have “competitors” (or my “own organisation”) and as a Trustee in the industry charity I have to be impartial.

I agree it is a little personal at the moment (and UK biased), because no one has added to it from other parts of the world. I am sure it will not be long before one of you 'yanks' adds to my USA history parts however, and I am trying to get an acquaintance from Australia to add info about the industry down under.

Could I ask you to please tell me what more I can do to the piece to make you happy?

I have read Wikipedia:Business' FAQ as well as Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and can not find anything that relates, or is relevant to this item. Clearly it is my article at the moment, but that will change as others add their input (there is a lot more to be said).

What we must do is to explain to the world about this greatly misunderstood and underrated industry, that serves them daily.

Andy Andy Lambert (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken to your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Mike I don't wish to be awkward because you are clearly trying to 'do your job', However I have read your response and nowhere in the piece can I find a mention of my name 'Andy Lambert', nor is there any mention of the organisation I was involved with (I was in fact the boss of Nationa Rescue [1]one of over 600 recovery operators in the UK).

There are a couple of pictures of our vehicles, but that is because they are the only ones I can use as I hold the copyright to them.

I am rewriting the article on Turbo dispatch, because that does mention me (but as the person who created it and because the industry was so grateful it made me a 'hero' it is hard not to). Re Chattanooga you should visit it - Vehicle Recovery is a huge complicated multi facetted and interesting industry, and should be better understood by the public.

Andy Andy Lambert (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you have tagged this stub article (which I have just added) as a copyright violation, I take it that you are referring to the filmography list? If so please can you explain how a filmography can be copyrighted information? If this is the case there will be hundreds if not thousands of articles on wikipedia that would need to be tagged. Sue Wallace (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, as I say, I have just created it and was editing and I intend to put the filmography in a template format preferably. I also thought it was best to add all known films so that links can be created 'down the line' so to speak. As I say, it's a work in progress, but is it still worth me doing so? Sue Wallace (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think you should delete the article then because I don't use sandboxes first and have never had to before. All the best. Sue Wallace (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me for jumping in. Pure factual information, presented in a non-creative fashion (e.g., alphabetical or chronological), is not copyrightable in the US. That's bedrock constitutional law; see Feist v. Rural Telephone Service. To the extent that someone who has aggregated data has applied unique or creative selection criteria or unique or creative ordering or presentation, or unique or creative additional content, then that content can be copyrighted. However, it's what's called a "thin" copyright; the factual material is not copyrighted, only the original contribution (the selection, presentation, or additional content). --Lquilter (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to communicate. The problem was never with the data (and I really hope Sue does continue on the article), but with the blatant cut-and-paste re-use of the IMDb's distinctive presentation, which is where I fear we would be vulnerable under Feist. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the strict censorship they have over there, or the bias in favour of fundamentalist Christianity (of which I am not an adherent) and of a narrow, right-wing form of American conservatism (whereas I am a British Tory, which is a slightly different concept). But I tolerate it, just as I tolerate Wikipedia rules which I don't like (such as Wikipedia is not a democracy, since I think it should be). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. I see no reason not to try and improve both encyclopedias. Besides, on Conservapedia I mainly edit non-controversial articles, such as those on military ranks and those relating to Oxford University (the institution which I attend); I try to add sources and improve the depth of their coverage, since they have a serious lack of decent articles on non-US topics. Walton^One 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike. First you revert me and called me a “vandal” (→Wikipedia:Etiquette). Then you left me a warning(→Wikipedia:Etiquette). Do you think what you did was appropriate? Sorry, but I think it's more than inappropriate. It's just rude, in my opinion. I simply haven't seen that it was a userpage. Best wishes from —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not DB tag a college or university article because the article has tone or POV issues, as you did to Briarcliffe College. Such issues can be tagged, repaired and fixed (by anyone). Placing a speedy deletion tag is absolutely the incorrect action to take. --Bobak (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the vast (if not all) for-profit schools have issues in real life; and they all tend to get POV-edited by people involved with the company/school (Capella and U. of Phoenix are constantly getting fought over). At the same time, I think Wikipedia can provide a service in helping people identify the for-profit schools --I actually created a lot of the stubs so that people looking resumes and wondering "what on earth is ____ college?" they can get an unvarnished answer: it's a DeVry-style factory; though they (generally) do fall short of being diploma mills. Of course, these articles do get spammed by partisans, I'm convinced a number of them are employees --so vigilance, as you pointed out, is important. The problem is finding the line: listing degree programs is a bit silly, but not particularly POV. Using the same sort of copy and adjectives from their brochures is definitely a problem (I've heard it referred to as "brochureware"). I completely agree with tagging problem articles with {{POV}}, {{advert}}, etc. I'll take a look at the three you dbed. --Bobak (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I tagged some of them as advert, rather than db-ing them. Just look at the edits of Lee26 and JLG1010 and you'll find them all, I think. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've reported something similar at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#SEO Career Education Corporation spam on for-profit school articles. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, that section's now been retitled Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Fathom SEO's Career Education Corporation spam on Wikipedia (permanent link) --A. B. ^(talk) 22:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Orangemike! :) I was wondering if you would be interested in helping me out on Portal:Feminism? If so, Reply at my talk page or drop me an email. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Someone (not me!) has nominated Donna Ladd for deletion. As someone who has made contributions to it, you may wish to comment on this on the talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike -- A user recently suggested I do an RFA. I know you recently did it, and I'd love to get your thoughts on two things, if you have time. (1) How much of a pain was it to do the RFA procedure itself? (2) Was it worth it? Have the tools been useful to you? Have you continued to do the things you like in WP or has this been a distraction? -- Thanks! Lquilter (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it...I dunno why any of Wisconsin is included as it is past Chicago. Never-the-less, I included Green Bay, thank you for letting me know Ctjf83^talk 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, OrangeMike! Don't know if you can help, but would you take a look at S. A. Payne? I'm not sure she's notable, for one thing, and she desperately needs some reliable sources. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't just delete the crime section if you don't like it. Fix it or leave it there till somebody else fixes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil' Rad (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this page, because it's got too much content to qualify as an A1. If you still think that it should be deleted (and if you do, you may be right), it should go to PROD/AFD. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message yes the article is a mess and does need rewriting have you the caption on the image for instance (from a Kestrel???) its not a village or an area of Cumbria I know particulary well but Im pretty sure Wordsworth never owned land there and if he did it didnt come from Big sir George from Grasmere or that the village has ever been refered to as The Big Apple I'll try and do some research (though I know it may contravine the orginal resaerch policy on here) and get back to you Penrithguy (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title "Franklin Coverup Hoax" is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

In the previous section, various editors commented on their support for, or opposition to, a name change to "Franklin Coverup Incident." Those who commented over the space of several days included Sherurcij, PopeFauveXXIII, Wayne, Orange Mike, Apostle12, and Rosicrucian.

Orange Mike came up with a suggestion: How about "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims.

I support this newly proposed title change and am asking for additional comments at this time from concerned editors. Apostle12 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your revert to Blue, regarding color/colour, and while I don't really care which spelling is used, by your own argument you shouldn't have changed it back. From WP: MOS:

"No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial."

There's no reason to care which way it's spelled. It's hardly worth risking an edit war. Just a friendly heads up!  :) Darkage7 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But, per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National varieties of English: Retaining the existing variety, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." There are good reasons why Orange (colour) is in WP:LAME! This particular editor has been messing with that one as well, and has made no case for his changes, other than an edit summary which read (and I quote): COLOR IS SPELLED C O L O R NOT C O L O U R (WHICH IS GAY BTW) [sic]! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor who said that colour "IS GAY" never edited the Blue page. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up on A Song for You (Bizzy Bone album). I removed your speedy request, as the previous deletions were expired prods, so this article isn't eligible for a G4 speedy deletion. Feel free to prod or take to AfD if you'd like.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First off she is the winner of Miss Florida and Miss Florida USA. The pageant winners have been layed out, and each year the winner is put into the listing. In addition, she was added by the Official UF Wikiproject as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccort (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the page Kathryn Anne Feeney, which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of CSD#A7, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion because some evidence of notability has been given - the subject is the winner of a notable contest. If you still want the page to be deleted, please use the WP:AFD process. Thanks! Tivedshambo (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Orange Mike, We met in a much earlier Wiki debate over the Stagflation article. It's become a hot topic now, as all who watch the financial markets now know. ("How far can the Fed go fighting a recession without igniting stagflation?") The article is doing well with many great contributions from other professionals, with the citations and all that Wiki likes. We come now to Cranial Osteopathy, something taught to me in the Seventies by the great Doran Farnum, D.O., of San Juan Capistrano. At issue in this article, a subheading within Osteopathy (where it belongs) is the fact that M.D.s without osteopathic training dispute the validity of the profession, and the A.M.A. negative point of view repeatedly is reversed back into the article. My point in the Talk page there was that at least the first paragraph should tell it from the point of view of the cranial osteopath, not some doubter with an M.D. point of view casting aspersions with every phrase. Where do I go for help, if yet once again I get slammed?ExecTaxes (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping straighten out "Franklin child abuse allegations," Orangemike. I really made a mess. Need to remember not to try new stuff when tired.Apostle12 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up my edits. I was interrupted and had to finish up quickly. Bovlb (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding information about Richard Mentor Johnson's role in novels by Eric Flint. Could you please cite a source for this information? I don't doubt its accuracy, but I'm getting the article ready for an FA run, and I think that's the kind of info that would need to be cited. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'll post this issue to the Village Pump. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello OrangeMike, I have made changes that you requested to the VistaPrint Page. I wanted to see if this met the criteria that you were looking for. Please let me know if I have met the requirements.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffespo20 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I am not trying to do anything that is inappropriate on here, I just want to be able to get the information out there. I am being impartial and am only presenting facts and have avoided any conflict of interest that the page now states. I have also made edits that have been asked. Please let me know if there is a way to fix this.

Thanks.--Jeffespo20 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to fix, really. The current version is far superior to prior ones, although a few additional cites would be nice. The COI tag is merely informational in nature, and in the edit summary I did give you full credit for your prompt disclosure when asked. Do read, however, our guidelines on conflict of interest and editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For renaming to Reader (Christian Science Church) when the article was 4 minutes old. I wondered a bit how to name the article, and I think your change was helpful. Marc W. Abel (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why you think it is acceptable to keep an unsourced lead, just for being "longstanding"? In the case you are serious, I quote this from the "longstanding" lead in order to ask your honest opinion:

Racism (...) being the belief that human beings are divided into more than one race

What it says here is that racism is: to believe that human beings are divided into more than one race?

Just compare this with the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (NY 7 March 1966), article 2:

States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races

The States Parties mention "all races", so according to your definition the States Parties both condemn racial discrimination and are committing racism? Rokus01 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Convention is about practical politics; the clause you quote from the article is about the bogus biology behind "race" theories. If you feel the sentence can be better written, make a suggestion on the article's talk page. But don't substitute broken grammar for clear sentences; and don't insert the dogmatic and false statement that racism is always the same as racialism, since the lexicographic reality is much more complex than that. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is as complex as the personal point of view of somebody that does not bother to source his original research. You are not telling the truth about "longstanding", since the first change towards this direction was made just over a month ago, the 23th of december by SteveSims : [2] I can't see he or you or anybody else is discussing this on the talk page. Please don't create an incident by imposing your stance, that might be honest but anyway does not contribute to NPOV and NOR policy, and certainly not to the requirement to source. I'll copy this discussion to the Racism talk page. Rokus01 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We just had a long ordeal about this page. I'm working closely with dorftrettel on how to work this in. Things won't go in until they have clearance from him. Thanks.-FancyMustard (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Reader (Christian Science Church). Marc W. Abel (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a little exaggerated to think that a list of publications can constitute a violation of copyrights? First of all anyone could do a library search of all of her publications and come up with the same list of publications, in that exact order (alphabetical). And secondly the list is clearly not copypasted from that source since each contains publications that are not found in the other and the two lists are formatted differently. Third how on earth can somebody exert copyrights of a list of someones publications? And why would they? ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the reproduction of the typo "Geopgraphic" that led somebody else to raise this question. If it's clear to you that the list is not a simple cut-and-paste, then feel free to delete the tag and remove from the problem list. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to remove the prod, when someone else did so.

My reason for wanting removing it was that you as the editor who added the prod, didn't comment on how you thought it was a pov fork or where it should be merged to.

How it is a POV fork? It is a huge article which in no way shape or form could fit into Satanic Ritual abuse. Sethie (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi OM,

Have a gander at Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations - I've removed the prod (though you're still free to AFD it if you still see it as a POV fork) and there's discussion on Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Spin-out news clippings regards this. I think it's an appropriate page given the large number of other lists, if you still think it needs deletion then we'll discuss at AFD. If you think it is recoverable given the discussion, I would love some comments on how to do so (I'm usually not much involved in List pages). WLU (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Do you have any suggestions for the page itself? It's the first 'list of' page I've created, and I don't really know how they break down. WLU (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The geographical breakdown seems a very sensible way to do it. The content, however, still reeks of credulity and sensationalism to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, which is why we wanted to farm it out of the main SRA page itself. It gives face validity and credibility to a concept which is essentially rejected by just about everyone except the false memory crowd. It's a difficult page to work with in part because of numerous editors with, ahem, restricted interests, while at least myself split my attention to a much larger variety of topics and dislike chasing down references and quotes for a topic that is pretty much regarded as a joke on pubmed. Still, it's a lot more congenial than you'd expect at times though it does require holding a very strict interpretation of WP:AGF. If you've got specific comments I'd definitely appreciate them, but I can completely understand any desire to not get involved. WLU (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike, we hear loud and clear that it appears to be sensationalism to you. I for one would love for that to be included in the article, for example, do you have citations or sources which criticize or are critical of such claims? A religious scholar saying, "People add this label or false accusations" or something? If so, it would not only make a more balanced article, it would be bring things closer to "the truth." Sethie (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mesa_Riverview. Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike, a couple of questions: 1) There are THREE references on the stub. How can you say that it needs citations? 2) How can you complain about the neutrality of the stub when you have not made your case in the discussion section? Why don't you explain it to me. Kgrr (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

re:

Sound Mind Investing

This article was deleted, as it was blatantly advertising the newsletter and associated websites. In addition to our absolute prohibition against advertising in Wikipedia, your creation of the article was also an overt violation of our rules on conflict of interest. In addition, with all due respect, the newsletter would not have met our requirements of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. There are plenty of businesses profiled in Wikipedia. You're saying that this pseudo-Matthew Pryor is more notable than SMI? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_pryor

Our company is very similar to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Financial_Ministries

Additionally, I was explaining what we do and our history. I didn't solicite a sale or advertise at all. In fact, I don't think I even linked to our website in the entry.

So, if you could, please explain how I violated your "rules of conflict of interest" and "notability". With thousands and thousands (over 50,000 subscribers) over the years, and almost 100,000 copies of our book "The Sound Mind Investing Handbook" sold which was nominated for the Gold Medallion Award, we are quite notable. We have endorsements by some of the biggest names in the Christian community including:

Bill Bright Founder of Campus Crusade for Christ

Larry Burkett Co-Founder / Crown Financial Ministries

Dr. Charles F. Stanley Senior Pastor / First Baptist Church of Atlanta

Ron Blue Founding Partner of Ronald Blue & Co

Beverly LaHaye Founder / Concerned Women of America

D. James Kennedy, Ph.D. Senior Minister / Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church

Mary Hunt Founder and Editor / Debt-Proof Living

Howard Hendricks Chairman, Center for Christian Leadership Distinguished Professor, Dallas Theological Seminary

And more.

I don't understand how we don't comply yet there's tons of Wikipedia entries regarding people that most folks have never heard of and don't have endorsements from anyone respectable.

Additionally, we've been profiled on CBN.com, Crosswalk, and by Crown Financial Ministries. Each week in fact our content is on their huge websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpryor (talk • contribs) — Acpryor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. Given your position with this company, Austin Pryor, your creation and maintenance of the article constituted a blatant conflict of interest.
2. Advertisement includes public relations, not just solicitations to purchase. You yourself confessed that "I had copied all of our marketing copy in" to the article.
3. The existence of other articles which need to be improved or removed is not an argument for the retention of articles which violate our principles and guidelines. Thank you, however, for pointing these out to me.
4. The endorsements are irrelevant; notability, as we say, is not contagious. I decline to comment on the respectability of some of the people on that list, as that would be a violation of our neutral point of view policy.
5. Be assured that if this company is genuinely notable, some neutral third party might someday write an impartial article about it. If that were the case, the article would stand or fall on its own strength, with no adverse effects from this incident. It happens all the time.--Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Can someone else in a different dept write the article? 2) I removed the marketing copy before saving it. 3) So are you going to spend the next several days purging these older articles? And would be correct to assume that your own page would be deleted if you weren't an admin? 4) Even though our content is displayed across other companies websites for thousands to see daily? 5) I go back to my 1st point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpryor (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1) No, that's still a conflict of interest. Y'all can't be impartial about your own company. 2) The article still read like marketing copy. 3) I've already tagged the two articles you mentioned; there is no article about me here, because I'm not notable. 4) Your content being elsewhere is irrelevant; what would be relevant would be articles about your company by impartial, third-party sources. 5) Nobody who is connected to your firm as employee, investor, client, momma-in-law, etc., is exempt from our standard of impartiality. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I think I'm getting it...

So I'm clear, if someone other than anyone affiliated writes an article about SMI on Wikipedia, that would be okay as long as it held up on its own merits. That is to say, that person would have to do it all. And be responsible for it all. And it would have to be factually accurate.

Is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpryor (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michael malcolm thompson, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michael malcolm thompson is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michael malcolm thompson, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you're on-line, would you like to knock out José Manuel Lugo, Jr. again? Already speedied three times, if he creates it again perhaps we can block him, and perhaps salt it. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unfair. I refer to the article from Japanese wikipedia, and you just put the speedy tag right after I created it. The company is one of the major ISP company in Japan. You didn't give me any time to build up the article! And didn't you see the attached link in the infobox?--Appletrees (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Many article start from stub like that. I provide the infobox which has some info about the company. The article is just missing references. If you are so eager to delete the fresh stub, you might delete whole bunch of stubs in Wiki. --Appletrees (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reason he doesn't belong in the cat is because presidential candidates belong in the Presidential Candidates, 2008 category, but not the supercategory, Presidential Election, 2008- as stated in big warning letters on the category page. Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you think that saying someone is a professor of philosophy at harvard and the editor of the collected works of an extremely notable scientist is not an assertion of notability. You may not think it notable enough, and that's for AfD, but it is certainly an claim to at least some degree of notability. Personally, i think it will certainly stand at AfD, but that s just my advice.DGG (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've dialed back the local boosterism and put the fact of Idaho's having the largest single caucus back into Caucus, as I believe it meets the criteria for notability. It doesn't quite fit in Super Tuesday (2008). kencf0618 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

8,290 voters. AFAIK no other caucus can top that! kencf0618 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Most college radio stations in NY have their own page, so if you are going to nominate WNYO for deletion then you'd have to do the same to the other 30-40 with similar wattage. And it is listed as a station on CNYMedia.com. http://www.cnymedia.com/transmitters.cfm?&Band=FM&Market=Oswego -FancyMustard (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for retention of an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys are like robots throwing out your WP:Stuff. Our station is more than legit, if you had your own 100watt station it was probably illegal. We also broadcast on the Internet at wnyo.org which you can access anywhere in the world. Which many people use to listen to Oswego Laker Hockey which won the D-III National Championship last year. -FancyMustard (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I had my own show, not my own station, on a college station with a tiny wattage, like yours. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you made it seem like you were broadcasting out of your basement with a homemade transmitter. -FancyMustard (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=63122 FCC posting, and also go to the wnyo.org website. WNYO-FM is also moving into a new studio in the new campus center in Fall 2008. You can call the school to verify that or surf its webpage. And for my first radio show this semester, tune in and I'll play Greatful Dead for you! Time to be determined-FancyMustard (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You got any Zappa? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor. Originally I added a non-neutral comment. I recognize that, it is gone and now the article is properly cited with FOUR different third party sources. There is no original research outside of what is common knowledge (i.e. Oswego is in New York State).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. I am not promoting myself, my name isn't even in the article. We are not using this as a self-promotion on a whole either. WNYO page was here long before I came along to edit. I didn't create http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_college_radio ,so obviously someone deemed that college radio stations in NY state be listed on wikipedia.

Citing oneself - Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. This article does not have excessive self-citation. In fact, I don't think it has anything left that hasn't been cited with a hyperlink or reference at the bottom of the page. Everything is in the FCC listing, CNY Media report or on the WNYO homepage. Plus, myself editing in an area I have academic expertise is not a COI.

Non-controversial edits -Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as 1.) Removing spam and reverting vandalism. 2.) Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. 3.) Fixing spelling and grammar errors. 4.) Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged. 5.) Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page. To determine what is controversial, use common sense. If another good faith editor objects, then it's controversial. Nothing in this article is controversial! And if anyone thinks it is then you need to let it go because you really have no reason to think it is. WNYO broadcasts sports live. Oh that offends me! Come on! You see my point!?! And #4 on that list I fixed. I cleaned up my own mess with my original non-neutral wording.

So please explain to me the basis of your argument other than the fact I am writing about something I have an academic expertise in. Which by the WP: link says is NOT grounds for COI!!! -FancyMustard (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, nobody from the station should be doing any substantive editing themselves (with certain limited exceptions). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"You guys are like robots throwing out your WP:Stuff." There is something about that. Maybe we should cut down on the Wikipedia lingo when explaining Wikipedia's inner wonkings workings to basically well-intentioned newbies. User:Dorftrottel 17:17, February 7, 2008

Thanks, Dorft, you've been really helpful even if we've differed on different things. Mike, like I said, I didn't create the article. I can understand if a couple external links are axed (cause that could be a little much), but the article as a whole is very informative and doesn't self promote the station in anything other than what the station is known for. Broadcasting live sporting events, etc. -FancyMustard (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was notable because he runs one of the largest teen escort companies in the US and due to the strange circumstances surrounding his personal life. --RucasHost (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he seems to meet the notability requirements set-forth in WP:BIO. --RucasHost (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge article on him -- which received an award -- at Legal Affairs. I cited it when I started the Wikipedia article. There are also many smaller articles on the Internet, didn't any of you do any research before you deleted my article? --RucasHost (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the term Wikipedia used at Teen escort company, it has nothing to do with sex. --RucasHost (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why have i been given a speedy deletion? My post is about my web browser, and is formal in the sense of computer software. Can you please remove the speedy deletion as i need my articles for college and my websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patternjake (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am an admin here and while cleaning out the articles at Candidates for Speedy Deletion, I saw that you tagged the above article as an A7. I believe that "known for his role in founding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is an assertion of notability, and have therefore declined the speedy. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

hi again, i want to KNOW why you deleted my Element Browser article. You claimed it was a project but what about Microsoft Windows, Firefox and all the other computer softwares? Firefox is a project too or are you hired to remove any new competeing product??????? I want answers, and you know who i am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patternjake (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The project in question is not notable. All the other software you listed is not only long out of beta testing, but has been written about in major publications around the world. Wikipedia is not a venue for notes about some kewl new project you're working on. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I kind of "noticed" that you deleted The Fast and the Furious 4, an article I created, per CSD G4. I just want to inform you that your rationale is false, the article you deleted is fully created by myself based on new sources and is not a recreation of previously deleted material. I request that you to restore the article immediately. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello? It would be nice if you could clean up the mess you've made. Now someone else have created the article again but this one sucks, please delete it and restore my revision. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Fast and the Furious 4. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MrStalker ^(talk) 22:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's fast. Never mind then. Thanks. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey... the article was deleted, again. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I got a bit of a mess there. Thanks for you help with the deletion, redeletion, undeletion... eh... well, thanks. I'll see you in the AfD :P --MrStalker ^(talk) 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike. Please reply to my comment at Talk:Academy for Educational Development when you get the opportunity. Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Timothy C. Winegard would almost certainly not be considered notable, quite apart from the COI, but it was asserted he was the author of a scholarly articles, and any assertion of plausible notability should prevent speedy. I'm not asking you to undelete it--it isnt worth the trouble, but as I see it better to do things right for the education of the newbies. DGG (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike, we've seen each other around the XFD land a lot, and agree about 95%+ time. You fight the good fight. Where bio's and music, songs, etc. are concerned, the already loose notability guidelines are routinely ignored - no sourcing, or sourcing to rags, myspace, youtube, blogs seems sufficient. I can only contemplate the rarest of cases where you can have an encyclopedic article on an upcoming album - these articles are rumors and fancruft, how are we expected to have what I consider the minimal basic facts about an album: its tracks, reviews, and sales rankings. Barring significant charting, it's likely to be best to describe the album on the musician's page. And why musicians and other bios are thought to be encyclopedic when no one can find out when or where they were born, the most rudimentary biographical material that any biography should contain. Just a pep talk (you probably don't need) that there are others who feel as you do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will admit, the probable COI and the "grandson of somebody with a Wikipedia article" didn't exactly make me look more favorably at it; but it's the lack of notability claim that did it. Four articles is a pretty low count, and doesn't make an assertion of notability, to my way of thinking. Four books yeah; but not four articles. Heck, I've published more than that (albeit in vulgar, common magazines and newspapers with much larger circulations, not in scholarly publications); and I make no assertion of notability for myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

... nor have I any idea about the possible or probable conflict of interest; but four articles in refereed academic journals could establish notability; then again it might not. It all depends on the notability of the four articles, and that is something that only a person versed in the field, most likely an academic, can determine. And academics are few and far between on Wikipedia.

Conversely, four books -- or forty articles! -- is no guarantee of notability. There are vast differences in number of articles produced in various academic disciplines, and in some it is the norm to have large numbers of co-authors (even the Nobel prize is often divided; let us not even consider the Writers' Guild rules concerning film credits or the Academy Awards for producers!)

Nor is circulation a certain guide; the smallest of the British tabloids probably has a circulation greater than the combined press run for the New England Journal of Medecine and the Harvard Law Review, which in now way reflects on the notability of their respective authors.

I am not arguing an elitist position: to have written a book of any sort -- just one book -- that finds its way onto the N.Y. Times bestseller list or onto Oprah Winfrey's show should settle any question of notability.

Nor am I expressing any opinion concerning Winegard, just putting down some general observations about a most likely insoluble problem on Wikipedia. My own bias is that anything ending in .EDU deserves the benefit of the doubt -- innocent until proven guilty -- but then again that's how my e-mail address ends; a proper academic — I hope I qualify as such — discloses his / her potential conflicts of interest. Robert Greer (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the standards for speedy deleting articles must be far more liberal than my expectations if that particular article is even eligible for speedy deletion. I certainly would have expected that article to go through an AFD discussion before it was deleted. Not at all marginal IMHO. An unsolicited opinion from Royalbroil 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I've done quite a bit of work on the article. Perhaps you can look at it again and give me a few pointers. My goal is to have it accepted as a GA article soon. Kgrr (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A postscript, posted on my page then realized you might be done watching it, so I'll mention it here too.

You do realize that this works differently from piping in wikilinks, which changes what you see on the page, don't you? It is still the article name that appears in the category listing, no matter what you put in the sort key. The sort key only affects where it appears; it doesn't change what appears there. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten that, in all honesty. I'm fortunate in that my primary language doesn't use diacriticals. Unfortunately, for languages that use non-ASCII characters, this system is badly crippled. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of AMC and its nicknames, I think blogs could be counted as sources since the topic deals with slang. Also, a good number of sources are saying the same thing: People (even official sources who are unaware of what AMC originally/actually stands for) do refer to AMC as the "American Movie Channel" and/or "All Movie Channel". If it were just ONE blog saying this, then yeah, I can see that. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I love your edits on the feminism article. I take it your interested in feminism too, Am I right? I also wanted to say that I have watched "Win Ben Stein's Money" and I think I might remember you being on the game show. That was one of my favorite game shows. One more thing, I live in Tennessee too. I hope to see more of your edits on the feminism article in the future. --Grrrlriot (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your comment on my talk page from about a month or so ago. I'm not sure if you noticed. Thought I'd let you know. --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force. Just thought I'd let you know about it. :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

At Wikiproject Robotics, we always welcome input from everyone who reviews new articles...we've got a bunch of newbies on the way (heads up :) and we'll need you guys to be on your toes. Why do you think the article about the Spyder is promotional? How would you review a robotic lawnmower that has not yet been released in a way that is not promotional? Btw, this is just a stub...extra information from a guy who has actually tested the product is on the way. Granted this article is the worst-sourced new article I've ever written...and I can't see how to avoid that with a consumer product which has not yet been released. But if you like, I'll be happy to dig harder. I combed the usual sites with not much luck. And P.S. ... issues about what sources are and are not valid for robotics articles is a subject that was recently discussed over at WP:AN ... if you're going to be reviewing our new articles often, you might want to read some of the discussion at WP:ROBO/ADMINLOG. I've copied this to my userpage, reply there please. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Did you see my comment about the reliability of the source?

[copied from my userpage to SatyrTN and Orangemike] Dank55 - You're an experienced editor. You've been around a while, it looks like. You should know that articles are required to meet notability guidelines. That means "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject." In the case of Spyder (lawnmower), that would mean the article should have multiple reviews of the product that aren't done by the manufacturer. Until and unless that can be found, I recommend keeping the article within your userspace. Try to find some reliable sources, some independent references - then publish the article. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[Copied to SatyrTN's talk page]Satyr has pretty much covered everything I was going to say, Dank notability, notability, notability. These articles are promoting non-notable products, so I feel that the spam speedy applies. No offense, and without intending to "bite the noobs", I would say that the Wikiproject sounds like its entire purpose is to create articles destined for rejection. Not every clever new concept and interesting project is notable; most of them are bound for the dustbin of history. I would advise a robotics project to switch to improving the existing articles, and not creating all these articles about products that have not even been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a recently relevant discussion over at WP:AN (which I referred you to), and this feels like part of that discussion to me, so I'm going to continue the conversation over there...even though WP:AN is usually for disputes and I'm not disputing what you did. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(copied here from our wikiproject in response to your post there) I responded at WP:AN. I apologize, my post in WP:AN came two hours after this [i.e. your wikiproject] post...I didn't see it, I was looking at the 3 userpages where we had been discussing it. I want to stress to everyone that Orangemike is only doing his job here, and I think he made some eloquent points, and this was the right forum for these points. I didn't copy these points over to WP:AN because in that forum, people are all up to speed on this stuff.

this part I didn't say there (or at WP:AN)...Orangemike, I see this as a debate. I am not trying to paint you as, nor do I believe you or any admin to be, the evil dude. In fact, I've read your userpage, and you are very much my kind of guy. Your points on our Wikiproject were quite appropriate and useful, for that audience. But the bottom line here is "you get what you pay for". Many helpful people are showing up at Wikipedia...not starry eyed, crippled people like me, but people who actually know quite well what is and isn't "notable" in robotics...and they're all leaving with bloody noses. If you want better robotics articles, then you guys are going to have to pay the cost of taking a few minutes to listen to the other side. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(copied at my talkpage) I got the nicest email from Orangemike today, "I'm relieved to see that you will still be around, Dan. We need your kind of passion around here." Right back atcha, and please see my (short!) apology here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Accusations"? I've heard no accusations from you, Dan. Concerns, frustration, distress, yes; and all highly understandable. I've seen no accusations for which I perceive any need to apologize. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I wasn't sure how it would be perceived, I thought some might see what I was writing as at least a challenge to authority or something. Personally, I agree with you, I felt all those things, but was not challenging you. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the Amalgam Comics characters.. Do you want to replace by just an entry in a list, in which case I will remove the prod and send them to AfD, since it will probably be controversial. Or do you want to merge, retaining appropriate content, in which case they shouldt be on prod. DGG (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

so if you do want them merged or redirected, as you say on my talk page, why the PRODs? If its to get attention to them, that makes sense, and you have done so. But if they are deleted, it would be been harder to make appropriate reuse of the material, so I will remove the prods. I too oppose very long articles on individual characters, but I apparently set the bar differently than you, for the article on Skulk (for example) does not seem excessive. Given what appears to be the complicated chronology with the series, it might even help to have more extensive information about just where the characters appeared--but i am certainly not an expert. DGG (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to create a page to merge to, but then I discovered something: There was an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Amalgam Comics character in October 07 where the closing was that the list was to be deleted, since the notable characters were covered in individual articles. So I think t hat perhaps the merge will not be a good idea. I'm removing the prods, bring to afd if you want, though I would suggest waiting until after the arb com on Episodes concludes, since t he scope of it is not clear. I'd be perfectly willing to support a deletion review on that afd, if you want to bring it, or after the arb com, create a List of Minor Amalgam Comics Characters. I agree that these things are a problem, and we need a general solution--I am getting quite exasperated with trying to keep track of it all. DGG (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I rewrote the History section for our article page in an effort to put in facts about the company and link to supporting articles. I placed this on the discussion page as you requested. Would you please take a look at comment? I'd like to swap out the entire "History" section with my proposed content. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clearspring Widgetgirl 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you removed the link to Katoucha Niane's book "Dans ma chair" on Amazon.fr. Is such a link automatically "linkspam"? I didn't have any affiliate program tag in the link, if that is what you feared. Please advise. --AStanhope (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, I removed the speedy from White Owl Winery since it cited at least two reliable sources supporting notability (so I think that makes it notable in the technical WP:N sense). The article itself did a very poor job of claiming notability, so I tried to fix that in a simple way. I marked the article as a winery stub, so hopefully a wikiproject will pick it up and expand it. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you still think it needs it. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and definitely feel free to remove the ads from the article. I stopped reading at the paw paw. :) JackSchmidt (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you list SocialPicks for speedy deletion? The article clearly notes the significance of the company in almost every sentence.Dimension31 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can help improve Wikipedia by contributing to the article instead of trying to delete it for no reason.Dimension31 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A company that has had extensive press coverage for over a year is probably pretty notable.Dimension31 (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's had over two years of coverage. My mistake! Dimension31 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• New comments on Talk:SocialPicks --Daddy.twins (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That was not blatant copyright infringment. The picture may have been, you could have just erased that. Thanks a lot. Creamy3 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We couldn't just delete the picture! (Further discussion on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Carter Page ******** anyway. Creamy3 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, User talk:CatLink has requested an unblock. He seems to understand what he did wrong, is willing to play by the rules, but, wants to see if he can retain his present username. I think this seems like a reasonable enough request (by itself, the username is fairly harmless), however, I was wondering, if I could get you to take a look at User talk:CatLink, and, maybe comment on the discussion there, as the blocking admin. Thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I created a page about my place Yellayapalem. but to my surprise it is deleted recently by you. Could you please undo the deletion of that. That page tells about my place. presently it is in local language, i am planning to convert it to English.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.183.30 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

After talking with long-time friends at the ACLU dinner on Wednesday, some ideas about what activism is and isn't congealed for me, and I put them on my user page, for folks who are interested. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not new to wikipedia, and you have weighed in on Irishguy disappearing one of my references. I hope you did not ignore the facts of the history of this set of references, which are being targetted by Indymedia personnel. Contextflexed (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike: I am living where I cannot easily find a library with back issues of The Christian Herald. As you will note from the title of the referenced book, it is an anthology of writings from that periodical. I, also, would like to know the original citation. It was this small article by Moray that got me curious about her, and led me to do some serious informal research on her life. Perhaps someone else can access the source. ````Richard E. Davies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard E. Davies (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Organgemike! I've just been looking into the dispute between User:Irishguy and User:Contextflexed and you as the involved, blocking admin. Do you mind explaining, briefly, why the username was blocked indef? Poeloq (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've declined your speedy here as she is certainly notable - nomination for the BBC Folk Awards virtually guarantees this, plus has articles (albeit short ones) in 2 national newspapers. I've inserted a second reference from The Guardian. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion tag off the speedy and the rock bots or whatever that last article you tagged was. Although it may have been written in the form of spam (which I don't believe it to be), it can still be rewritten so as to be encyclopedia worthy. Best ragardsMonkeytheboy (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I am not a "substantial contributor" to this article. I HAVE deleted some sections in it so far that are obviously unnecessary for encyclopedic use. Monkeytheboy (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. See, this is why I don't do well with the ladies; I confuse things to be what they don't mean which at times is what they DO mean which are also variable depending on the moon phases and current climate conditions. (You tag seemed directed at me, if you didn't get that...)

RE: this edit
Interestingly, the German article cites no sources, either. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a large German population in Milwaukee. I took 4 years of German in high school and found absolutely no use for it here in the good ol' U.S. of A. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Holeycrissmiss!!! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, OrangeMike! As you don't appear to be a regular contributor to articles related to film, theatre, or television, I'm not sure why you seem to feel qualified to question Azzara's "notability." She was red-linked in several articles and I believe her credits are substantial enough to warrant an article of her own. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree an IMDb listing and a personal website unto themselves might not denote notability, but if the credits listed within them are substantial and already cited in other Wikipedia articles, then there would appear to be some merit to creating an article about the subject. (I wouldn't, for example, create an article about you based on your IMDb credits!) From what I can see, IMDb and IBDb widely are accepted as reputable sources of information. I'm working on a couple of other articles at the moment - coincidentally Azzara-related - but ASAP I will add one or two more external links if you feel they're necessary. Thanks for your response. MovieMadness (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to you repeatedly using 'proposed deletion'. It's passive. Go and nominate it for AfD, but since I object to it bring an 'uncontroversial' deletion, and have repeatedly in the past, it automatically isn't. --Thespian (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This was re Corinna Fugate. I believe you're wrong that it is not notable. Just because all she really merits is a stub doesn't mean it is totally without notability. I'll stand by an AfD ruling, but I'm tired of the attempts at uncontested deletion every 2 months or so when you know I'll contest it. --Thespian (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

for Grant Stevens (doctor), asserting dozens of professional publications is at least an assertion of notability . If you don't think its enough for actual notability, use afd or prod. But anything that any reasonable person could think indicates some importance is enough for passing speedy. Please be more careful--there are a number of valid comments above by a number of different admins about excessive use of speedy. DGG (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

COI is also not a reason for speedy, or even for deletion. I have no idea if the article will pass AfD, or even if I will !vote for a keep there. But any assertion of importance passes speedy A7, and enough factual information is presented that it isnt pure spam either. DGG (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To Orangemike: This is an article about a public landmark in Jacksonville, Florida, controlled by the city government. There is no commercial interest, nor any direction to other websites. What is your justification for the spam tag? Mgreason (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To Orangemike: Citations have been provided where you indicated the need. Can the "Refimprove" tag be removed?Mgreason (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To Orangemike: Thank you for your assistance and contributions on this article. Mgreason (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a bunch of Edmund Quincy's I am working on after I tagged the page a disab/ Would you give on old man an hour to indicated the significance. I could not even down a cold one before it was gone. Much appreciated. PS. I do appreciate that somebody is looking a marginal pages, keep up the speedy work (grin).--Rcollman (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick followup, but I think your NOR tag is addressed now. Please let me know if you think there's still something that offends the policy.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding your [edit here], Could you specify what do you mean by the COI sign. What and who are you referring to? It was not made clear on the talk page. Cheers! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might well be true :). But we can not say that for sure, now can we? Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, thanks! :D Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please meta:Don't be a dick and perform some due diligence before deleting an article 30 seconds after creation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Well you could have done any one of the following:

• Not ignored my "hold on" tag.
• Noticed that the article has a link to the Swedish Wikipedia which has a full article.
• Waited more than 30 seconds after my first edit to delete the article.

Any of the above would have been sufficient for you to to not delete the article 30 seconds after the first edit. You are much too zealous, and shouldn't ever be the person to delete, after a person has added "hold on". The point of hold on is to force a third set of eyes on the article, not to ignore the tag and delete anyway. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that the account has been used to create very spammy articles for recording artists whose label is "Power Arts"! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up -- I will keep an eye out. The new name, however, is definitely harmless. - Revolving Bugbear 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume [3] was intended for User talk:128.12.55.62 (where somebody else has already commented). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Duh!!!! My bad; thanks for the catch, Prime. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why'd you delete My page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manga25 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you look over the most recent edit to the article? I have been reverting the change as unsourced and controversial. Would you give your opinion? Should the article become semi-protected since this edit has happened by multiple anons? I probably shouldn't semi-protect it myself since I'm involved in the dispute. Royalbroil 14:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The same person is doing the same thing at That '70s Show. Royalbroil 14:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the situation. I requested page protection and it was denied. Someone suggested WP:AIV, but I felt it wasn't necessarily bad faith vandalism but more of a content dispute. Royalbroil 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike, you had lodged a NPOV problem with the article. You wrote "The article is written from the point of view of an environmentalist (like myself), with partisan statements of the "It stands to reason that" sort". A pro-nuclear person would never write this article. They would never acknowledge peak uranium could be a problem. But I am trying to write the article as balanced as I can. If you would please, help me by identifying specific sections that need to be balanced. I will remove the NPOV claim if I don't hear from you by the end of the month.Kgrr (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As written the article is about a process, not the organization. I also do not feel that articles with references should be speedy deleted. I would not contest a PROD. Dsmdgold (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mike, I need your thoughts regarding on this article. Should not we take it to afd?--NAHID 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, I will further wikify the booktitles. The inline references are there. Anything else?S711 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) That was quick. Thanks. I'll work on it.S711 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Mike. How do you like my new notes? (article Ibn Khafaja)S711 (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm trying to get this article in line with wiki policy so that the article does not endure warning markers, other people have contributed to the latter deleted version as well as the rewritten version to improve it. The articles subject is not a contributer. This is actually the first in a series of articles I feel deserve to be added, but this being the first it is a learning experience, as I didn't realize there would be a detailed grulling of specifics. I do understand why it is important though to be thoughrough and have taken the time to look at other articles to improve this one. I really don't think the COI is warented though, the interest is objective, but generous in giving light to ones that people would care to know about and can learn from.

Cityvscity (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh, you know what I see what happened, LOL, see what I've been doing is creating the article on my user page because thats where I thought you were supposed to do it, I totally did not realize peope were going there reading it as my profile. Oh damn, no wonder people keep giving me a hard time. I'm not even a male, haha. I guess I need to change that then. Like I was saying this is only my first article.

Cityvscity (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You tagged modern metal for speedy deletion without notice, and rather quickly I might add. Care to explain? Gimmetrow 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I disgagree with you speedy deletion of the Vicki Iseman article. The article was a newly created stub that needed vast improvement and editing; however, it was not poorly sourced and I was in the process of improving the article after the original creator had done a poor job in its creation. I had already altered the material and assigned it a proper source prior to your deletion. I was in the process of editing the talk page to discuss the deletion issue when the article was deleted. I have written a statement on the talk page of that article. Failureofafriend (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• What do you propose I do? The speedy deletion tag was already deleted by another user before I came across the page. I don't want to recreate an article that was just deleted. If that isn't an edit war, the tag certainly seems to forbid it. I was in the process of beginning a discussion for it as a regular AfD on the talk page, and then I was going to improve the article.Failureofafriend (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's a mistake [4]. I have not translated the bibliography section but the author wrote a lot of books and biographies as you can see here or here. Yours, Puark (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please address my comments on Talk:Vicki Iseman. Explain why a five-kilobyte stub biography should contain a six-kilobyte in-depth analysis of a tangentially related matter. --TS 16:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Mike. Would you care to have another look at Ibn Khafaja? Cheerio.S711 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike, can you reassess your decision to delete the article I created for Moviestar.ie.

I created the page after checking the web notability guidelines, and from what I can see it satifies criterion 2 - "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" - It won a Golden Spider Award in 2006 as per the article. These awards are the main internet awards in Ireland, and as such are very well known here, and they are independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1-555-confide (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike. I saw your user page before I joined Wikipedia. I saw your user page in August, 2007. At the time, you were not an admin and I was thinking about creating an account. Now, you have become an admin. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Check THIS out, from LakeOswego (talk · contribs) --Calton | Talk 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted my page on Gary Huey. I wrote an explanation as to why the bio page was created because it was a link that tied into another page on surrealistic artists. As to the images I uploaded I did put information on where it originated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowe1 !2 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't think I had to give reasons why I deleted my own input. Thought it was only for other people's comments that I had to justify. I just want to delete the damn article. Has given me nothing but problems since I started it. RingPOPmom (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can't nominate for a deletion myself I have to have someone else do it? RingPOPmom (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes it did look pretty complicated. How bout you. Will you nominate it for deletion? I've had so many people during the first two deletion periods who claim she's not notable, reliable sources needed, verifiability, etc.... I'm tired of having everyone discuss about all the "wrong things" on it, etc... It would be easier to delete it from it's existance. RingPOPmom (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Aren't you going to vote on the deletion page? Only one person has voted. I don't need another noncensus vote and have it be kept again.RingPOPmom (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Shut your mouth! Dont tell me to be civil because I am done here. I will not log back into this site again or contribute to it again. Everybody here wants to act like a jackass thats fine, because I dont have to tolerate it.Harebag (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed your WP:CSD#A4 tag from User:LakeOswego. I am sure you did not intend to put it there. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike:

Sorry about that. Wasn't sure of the protocol. Thanks for the tip. Matt 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattPhillips33 (talk • contribs)

I refactored. Hope you don't mind! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you reverted an edit by Painbearer to Mad Hatter's user page. It appears that they are the same person. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I had just removed the G11 tag --and removed the one line of advertising--and saved in when you deleted it as G11. You were probably working simultaneously. Since it's a very low quality unsourced article, and I was about to put a prod tag on, I'm not asking you to reverse, but I think its a conceivable article on what is plausible a general subjectDGG (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I'm confused by your speedy deletions of the Franziska Drohsel article I'm trying to work on. The first speedy deletion was done in spite of a hangon template, and the second deletion asserted "foreign content" even though I had translated the entire introduction to the article. Aelffin (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a button-clicking accident; Franziska Drohsel has been restored! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the translated article. Aelffin (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Aber natürlich! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kein problem... Ich hab, übringens, deine "Tax the Rich" Template gestohlen. Sehr schön! Aelffin (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Youth United, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth United. Thank you. Welt^anschaunng 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted {{hangon}} on cream of mushroom soup, but you deleted it before I could post on the discussion page. Now that I have replied to the delete request, would you consider undeleting the page? It will have substantive content as soon as the page is finished. --Beefyt (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're proposing original research; Wikipedia is not the place for that. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In any Wikipedia article, it is necessary for the editor to demonstrate the notability of the article by citing published material on the topic. To achieve what I described as "demonstrating cream of mushroom has a distinct place amateur cooking", I intend to cite published recipes (e.g., in the Joy of Cooking) that call for cream of mushroom soup. I do not intend to create new recipes that use cream of mushroom soup, which would constitute original research. If citing recipes that use cream of mushroom soup constitutes original research, then I question how any Wikipedia article may cite sources and not be considered original research. On the contrary, citing sources is not original research, and declaring that cream of mushroom soup is notable in that it is frequently used is not original research, since this face is demonstrated by the abundance of sources on the topic, i.e., recipes. --Beefyt (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether COM soup exists, or is used in recipes; the question is whether such use is notable. The bare assertion that it is, because you deem its use "frequent" and "abundant" is OR. Now, if you've got cites from reliable sources other than a Monty Python skit that say so, then we're in business. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (had to make the Python reference; no offense meant)

So we agree that COM itself is notable by the primary notability criterion, but you disagree that the use of COM is notable. I therefore submit to you that we undelete the COM page (since it is demonstrably notable), and instead of including flagrant OR that the use COM is notable, I will instead restrict the content of the article to a contextualized list of Wikipedia articles of casseroles (such as the ones I have already listed). Since these articles haven't been deleted yet, we can reasonably conclude that they, and by extension, by proposed article, are notable and verifiable. What criteria, then, are left to support deletion? --Beefyt (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

???? So we agree that COM itself is notable by the primary notability criterion???? What are you talking about? I see nothing to indicate notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You said that you do not question that COM is used in recipes. Indeed, it has! Does this not imply that it has been the subject (an essential ingredient) of non-trivial published works (recipes) by multiple separate sources (thousands of cookbooks and blogs) that are independent of the subject itself (probably not on the payroll of Campbell's)? At first you said my article was OR, then you said the use of COM was not notable, and now you suggest that COM itself is not notable? I have rescinded my bid to prove that COM was notable. I ask only that you undelete COM, because it is notable (as demonstrated) and because it does not (and will not) violate any WP policies (such as OR). --Beefyt (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to go back and reread the definition of notable. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Inclusion of an ingredient in a recipe doesn't qualify. You need to find articles, books, etc. about the product itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to find some sources. Thanks for the help! --Beefyt (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Military ships describes the convention for the names of warships. Under this convention, this ship article should be named Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad (1769)--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My profound apologies to all concerned --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I too have fallen foul of the conventions. Please can you change the name back to the convention.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation. It was probably the fastest deletion ever in the Wikipedia history. I don't think that speedy deletion should be so speedy. Please don't be so trigger-happy and give a time to prove significance after putting speedy deletion tag. LEO LT is actually is quite significant as it is related to the construction to the new Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant - significant at least in the EU level. Thank you for you cooperation. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from - you are trying to maintain a high standard of article on Wikipedia, ensuring the topics are of sufficient notability. However, you are based in the US. Have you noticed that Netflix has an article? Moviestar.ie is Ireland's Netflix.

On your point about the "local" awards, most web awards are local to some extent or another, for example, very few non-English language websites are ever awarded by supposedly global awards. And aside from that, the Wikipedia web notability criteria do not mention that the award must be global. The Golden Spider Awards are well known in Ireland and the rest of Europe. If the awards were US based would you take the same view?

So please reinstate the article. 1-555-confide (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started an AfD here your input would be welcome.BigDunc (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You tagged this for speedy but it has 21 google news hits, http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=drugscope&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn and 56,200 raw google hits! (couldn't really flick through all of them to see how many were unique as it would take too long.) Anyway I just thought I would explain to you why I removed it, as I don't like rv-ing other editors. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish somebody would add some of that Googly goodness to the article, which is deucedly sparse on details and cites, and heavy on inappropriate in-article external links. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(bit of edit conflict) -I was saying ::Not that I've ever heard of them lol, I just googled, the original creators can fix the article :) but I suppose I'll find one or two:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 00:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we've crossed our wires somehow on this AfD. You appeared to respond to me here: * Delete per Orangemike and the fact that my search didn't turn up anything else either. Please also note that Greg Potts has a vested interest in this article's continued existence TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• • comment - how so? I've been assuming good faith all along on this. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When I was agreeing with your deletion rationale and saying the creator had a COI, which you seemed to agree with below. Where did our wires cross? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed this from CAT:SPEEDY. There are literally hundreds of chapters in colleges around the world, and they have many notable accomplishments. Send the subject to WP:AFD if you feel strongly about it. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix that problem of WP:RS if at all possible. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My goal is to get rid of the cruft, and to fix the crap. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow you're popular! I think when I reverted I got all the busted formatting because I reverted back to your own version, should be clean TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position; however, if you are going to delete the SHOEBACCA.com page, then please remove Zappos page as well. If you feel the Zappos page is worthy of remaining then please let me know when I can reinstate the Shoebacca page, as these are similar companies. Thanks, D IceburgTX (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

K Thanks, Mike, thanks for clarifying. I will follow a similar set up and address the issues you stated so it follows a better format. Like I said, this was my virgin page. Face down in the snow, no lube. Go Pack. IceburgTX (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the insight guys. Please note that notability on Wikipedia does not mean that a company is not credible, for those who read this stuff. We are as just as credible as Zappos, which seems to be notable enough to merit a listing here, and I guarantee you will find more information and accuracy regarding the product at the SHOEBACCA.com site. Maybe after we have been around long enough to have enough press to merit a Wikipedia entry, you'll think better of us. IceburgTX (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw that you had speedily deleted that article. No issue with that - looked like it might be an attack page also - but the article also had a pending AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Whistle Man. If only for housekeeping purposes, it helps if the one who deletes it also closes the AfD. I went ahead and did so. Verbum sapienti satis. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loren Chasse and comment, if you care to. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the situation with this article. I wish I knew what would be the best thing to do. The article has changed a lot since last I looked at it, and I'm no longer sure if my previous comments even apply. What I'm wondering is, do you think it would be sensible to remove the prod tag and just take this directly to AfD? That would, I trust, solve the problem -- if not once and for all, at least until Deletion review. According to my cursory review of the page's history and the edit summaries, there's an individual who finds the idea that this article is here offensive, so I doubt that merely removing the prod tag would be of any long-term use. I haven't traced all the references, so I'd probably want to do that, but I'm thinking AfD might be the answer. Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention, I do appreciate it; now I have to muster an open mind and the willingness to search the background <grin>. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you recently voted in AFD concerning an unreleased album. I invite you take part in the conversation here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_albums any input you have would be appreciated. Ridernyc (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion. User is being difficult. Take a look at the page when you have a moment. It is nothing more than a list with redundant facts and links. -UWMSports (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the username block for the other contributor in this case. That name is inappropriate. Cheers! Royalbroil 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like UWMSports' name either because it sounds too promotional for UWM. Royalbroil 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The other contributor has requested an unblock so that he can change his name. I have left a message for UWMSports' strongly suggesting that he voluntarily change his name before he gets a username block for being promotional. Royalbroil 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

UWM is a college sports program. ESPN is a billion dollar corporation. By that logic, OrangeMike should change his name for those who think he is promoting Syracuse athletics. Also, can someone monitor SportsMaster's revertions. He has had a heavy pattern of reverting edits, including suggestful comments on his talk page. -UWMSports (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI,SportsMasterESPN still editing under current username. -SlipperyPete411 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orange Mike, I would like to talk about your speedy deletion of an article on Arbor Snowboards, and wonder why you initiated this action. This site was not disimilar to many other snowboard and skateboard manufacturer sites, and included historical data. zachandrich (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had contacted me to let me know that this company needed coverage in a third party publication, in order to fit the notability standards. I will repost with one of the many articles which can be found by performing a simple google search attached. I might suggest you calm your desire to instantly delete in the future.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/arbor_snowboard_1.phphttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/arbor_snowboard_1.php

zachandrich (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMike can u help me or give me a contact that will help write my article or tweak it up with some exampl of how to make it work im spinning wheels PLEASE! Henslee57 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm not proposing to own any article. but, hey, yep, why is the own tag there, then, any way=?

secondly, where should people then get information of ongoing soft developments, which have not been publicly confirmed? take eg maka maka?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You've just speedily deleted the above article saying "doesn't indicate importance". However, the article did. It mentioned that he was a Fellow of the IEEE an award which complies with WP:PROF notability criteria at point #2. --JD554 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to make you aware of the discussion here. I tend to agree that there was a borderline assertion of notability in the article, although I also don't really know anything about the IEEE. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have reverted this deletion, per JD554's cogent argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I insert objection against the deletion of the eu.bac article. eu.bac is a non-profit organization. It can not be advertisement to inform about their tasks and goals. Tem18 —Preceding comment was added at 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Post some video on YouTube or something of your appearance on Win Ben Stein's Money! -UWMSports (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1) it's a half-hour show; 2) I don't violate copyrights. I've got a CD-ROM of it around the house somewhere, I think. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true, the ZZ Top thing in your bio had me going. Thanks anyway Big Orange. -UWMSports (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see it sometime too. I've always loved watching that show, and I bet I saw your episode. I'd also love to meet you sometime if I go down to Milwaukee. You seem very interesting and we have some ideology in Common. Royalbroil 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A wiki lunch someday would be fantastic. I live in Port Washington (home of Step by Step (TV series)). Us Wisconsinites gotta stick together! -UWMSports (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is buying? HAHAHAHA! -SlipperyPete411 (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

yet, what is the own tag inteded for?

just curious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike, my apologies for the problem created with my former username. The problem is corrected now, I thought I would inform you of that. --Josh (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on "simpson grierson", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, hang on! I am still editing the article. I will take off the tag for while. Cheers.--Mhsb (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chill out! If you're so keen to rename brand-new articles, at least have the grace to wait until the author has stopped typing. Also it's not good practice to rename articles so that you then break existing redirects. If you're so keen to write the thing, maybe you'd like to write the whole article? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What did this user do to get blocked? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Did she repeat in the creation of this article? Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... well at least she didn't explode in my face like others. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, really quick, I think we might consider giving this article a chance. A quick Google search gives back 105,000 hits, so there seems to be some initial notability. Also note that the AfD that I linked to on the talk page was closed as Delete with no prejudice for recreation. GlassCobra 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, WP:MUSIC states that if any of the criteria for notablilty are met, the article may be kept. The band meets more than one of the criteria, and therefor should be given a chance. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason it was tagged as almost empty was because I had just started the article. Within 10 minutes of creation, it was deleted. I was researching the band, and was trying to expand it before it was deleted, but to no avail. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See here ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, I'm sorry that I've never created a page before. I wasn't aware of a specific order. But all this is not my fault. I'm relatively new, and I tried to create a page. I can't get anywhere if it's deleted within 10 minutes of creation. It's as simple as that. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm aware of that. And I know he's trying to help. Google them. They're not gonna be "big someday", they're big today. as Cobra said, over 105,000 hits on google. How is that unnotable? ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This morning some vanalism started to occur on the Kindred Spirit Hybrid Oak Page. The items listed from the IP address of 72.75.64.21 are vandalism and I erased them because I am unaware of how to label them "vandalism" the other issues from Screener13 were addressed by others. The reason this page was created is because I have been getting questions regarding the nomenclature and parantage of this this hybrid oak tree... I thought this page would make things clear to folks and am in no way trying to jeopardize the integrity of Wikipedia. How can I post this info within your parameters... and how do I label thing "vandalism"??? Please help and lets be pesamistic together...Thank You --Joshnadler (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you regarding your thoughts on vandalism... What needs to be done for you to remove the posted "notability" sign???--Joshnadler (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I put a link to the United States Plant Patent Office on this page. This is looked at as a more creditable source than any of the options that you mentioned on my talk page. Not trying to get personal but if you, Orangemike, had been around the application process of a patent and worked with the patent evaluators to prove the worth of the plant selection, you would warrant the placement of page on Wikipedia. Every aspect of the patent is backed by science. All of the options you listed on my page are subject to personal and popular opinion. Please feel free to contact me regarding this issue.--Joshnadler (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take another look at the article, what's already on there makes it non-CSDable (there are references to notability in RS like the Boston Globe).. I've stubbified it (admittedly, some of it is crufty), but there is no basis to CSD it now. I'm working with some of the Riders to provide further references from local papers, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was a member of the supporter's group previously, yes. And I'm aware of the COI thorns on the rose (Trust me, if you saw the areas I've tried to mediate on, I may be one of the most aware folks on WP when it comes to CoI). That is why I re-holdon it instead of removing yet another CSD tag (the first one, I was justified on, as the recreate one specifically says material deleted as a result of an AfD) I just think that the references provided definitely make it a non-speedy delete. SirFozzie (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: here. You know you can't call someone a racist, man. Try and keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The hoax article Staine is now back as Staine (band). Tb (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor who created it also made a personal attack against User:Slakr. How does that go about getting addressed? Tb (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my page on DJC without responding to my "Talk" reasoning. DJC is one of the biggest production companies in Knoxville and more than fulfills the notoriety standards that Wikipedia requires. The wiki page I made is considerably more sourced and elaborate than other Business' pages (ex. AC Entertainment) and, though specific to DJC projects, is not slanted. If you'll tell me exactly what it is about the page that you consider to be "spam" I will rewrite it, but there's no need to delete the entire article, which contains a lot of good information. Please respond and tell me what to do to make it more acceptable, because DJC is a notable business and deserves to be in the Wiki. Dingstersdie (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

--I'm sorry, but your response wasn't really helpful. If you had given me the time to finish making the page, I would have added the fact that DJC made the first movie *ever* that was shot and edited digitally. Secondarily, it's not some "little production company in Knoxville," it has a satellite office in LA and does worldwide business. I've been all through the notability guidelines and even in regards to the discussion on the notability page, it seems like DJC is well-covered. According to the notability page, a business qualifies if it is notable on a national scale and has had more than 2 articles written about it. DJC fits those requirements. And again, there are a TON of pages for businesses just like DJC that have not even a fraction of the information and references I've provided here. Please take a look at the new first paragraph I put together and then, if you'll undelete the DJC page, I can continue to add information and references. Dingstersdie (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

DoubleJay Creative is a visual media production company founded by Larsen Jay^[1] in 2005. DJC specializes in television specials, commercials, documentary, educational & corporate films supported by a dynamic web and graphic design department. DoubleJay Creative draws on comprehensive production facilities, an international creative staff and the latest technologies to meet clients' visual needs. Larsen’s first film, Pinmonkeys^[2], was the first film ever to be entirely shot and edited digitally^[3]. Larsen's wife Adrian Jay joined the company in 2006, beginning in production but now heading up the development team. ^[4] DJC has a satellite office in L.A.

One major project that DJC completed was "Bijou Theatre: The Gem of the South," which was funded in part by the city. Knoxville's historic [Bijou Theatre] re-opened after extensive renovations in June 2006. DoubleJay Creative partnered with [AC Entertainment] to produce the celebration that included the production of a documentary retracing the history of this local landmark. The film premiered before a live audience and was simulcast on the local NBC affiliate, WBIR TV10. It won a Silver Telly Award, the award organization's highest honor,^[5] and was honored with a nomination for a regional Emmy Award from the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.

Have you read the last thing I wrote exculsively for you, Orangemike, it is posted in three loctations... do you have a responce or do you prefere to stay behind the smoke and mirrors.--Joshnadler (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was working a 15.75-hour double shift for my wife so our little girl could compete at a feis; visiting a friend; going to dance practice; having lunch with my family - in short, having a life outside of Wikipedia. Please refrain from such remarks, Josh. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I realise that the article is probably on the verges of notability, but would you mind elaborating on your PROD? Article creation is definately not my forté, so any help is much apreciated. I actually recreated the article on the request of another, but I do think that the company is notable enough to have a page. However, as I've said, I'm not so hot on creation, so I'll defer to you on the matter.--NeoNerd 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that certainly cleared that up! I wasn't insinuating that you were anti-game, by the way. Anyway, I will defer to you on this one, since my knowledge of notability is patchy at best. Thanks for the polite reply! --NeoNerd 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In my judgement, there's enough of an assertion of notability in the article (i.e. the claims of work as a producer for several notable bands) that it's not speedyable. You may want to take it to PROD/AFD instead. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it's generally good form to notify the page creator of a CSD nom (even though a bot got it in this case). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just delete it? :) Rudget. 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You really need to keep it in your pants when it comes to speedy-deleting articles, Mike. This isn't the first time you've jumped the gun on me and wasted a perfectly legitimate article. In the case of Remote Area Medical, 60 Minutes did a 20 minute segment on them last night. In the real world we call that notable. Self-righteous and over-zealous deletionists are the scourge of Wikipedia. Can't you focus your energy on something less destructive? --AStanhope (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for capitalizing the title of the page I just created. I was trying to figure out how you did it--could you show me? Iamblessed (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. I'm letting you know that if an editor removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, it cannot be added to the article again. WP:PROD says articles that have previously been proposed for deletion are not candidates for prod. WP:PROD also says "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back" and "If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability must be proved through references, and the page completly lacks them. The template itself stated that clearly. Million_Moments (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If the user continues to be unhelpful in deleting his talk page (presumably because he just doesn't like it), can he be temporarily blocked from editing it? Conversely, if he becomes helpful, I'd like to see this blanked or archived. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, our rules clearly allow an editor to blank their own talk page at any time; the presumption is that by blanking the warnings, etc., they have acknowledged having read them. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How long is his block? Your message never did say how long... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've declined your speedy on this - the album is by a notable band. Thanks! _GB^T/C 20:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the album may leave a lot to be desired, but as its an album by a notable band, it merits inclusion. Re-writed the darned introduction, or just delete the introduction, if you disagree with it! _GB^T/C 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What is up with this Article? First, it gets a tag for Speedy deletion, for "(A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance)," so, I put a hangon tab, and defended it's importance on the talk page, but it and the talk page got deleted before I was given any reply. Now, I reposted it, and used an introductory statement to signify it's importance: "A person in search of a Free MMORPG may wish to consider playing Shaiya, which is a relatively new Free MMORPG and is Free to Play." and now it is deleted for Blatant Advertizing. How am I to indicate it's importance without it seeming like advertizement?

Also, this second time, I had put a "underconstruction" tab on it, so as to let you all know it's in development. Supposedly, articles with such a tab are to be left for at least a few days, yet it was deleted almost immediately.

I know the article wasn't perfect, and didn't satisfy all the requirments, but I'm sure it could be edited by others such that it does. How can others edit it, if you delete it before they even have the chance to see it?

Also, take a look at the articles under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games How is/was the article "Shaiya" any different than those?

Please Restore the article "Shaiya," and if necessary, edit it such that it meets the requirements. Or... at the very least, reduce it to a "stub." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasjager (talk • contribs)

== Deletion of "Shaiya" for Blatant Advertising -- WHY? (2)==

Lack of Content--Yes, they may have been lacking in content, but I am not "all-knowing" and thus, there is no way (even with further research) that I would be able to cover all content neccessary. For this reason, I had decided to "start" the article, and have an "underconstruction" tab on it, such that other people could contribute to its construction and add more "content."

Lack of Notability--I'm not the best at signifying the importance of something, and apparantly when I tried to it was considered to be "blatant advertising." I don't know how to signify the importance of something without seeming to advertise such a thing. I would welcome any suggestions on how I could achieve this. Also, like the content issue, I was hoping that by having the "underconstruction" tab, it would be safe from deletion long enough such that other users could contribute and make mention of it's notability. I'm still waiting for a response as to how "Shaiya's" importance is any less than the other articles on games listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games or if you don't want to look though all those articles and insist on a specific article to compare it to I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monato_Esprit would do. As for other people, other people, impartial third-party reliable sources making note of Shaiya, I had an external link showing a review of it: * http://forum.mmosite.com/topics/175/200712/18/173,1.html from mmosite.com. I'm sure, given time for others to edit and develop it, more external sites would be added. My use of "New" did not in any way say that there was no external review about Shaiya, it merily meant it was not that long ago since the game's creation.

I'm not sure I understand, Please restate: "If you feel there articles about non-notable topics here, thank you for noticing: nominate them as non-notable" with more easily understandable wording/phrasing. I've read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but don't see how it relates; further explanation would be nice.

I recieved the following on my talk page:

== Drafts in userspace ==

Creating a new article is probably the most difficult and frustrating task a new editor can take on at wikipedia, so my main advice is to try and improve existing articles first to get an idea of the process.

However, if you want to be given more leeway in your article's early stages, you may wish to try creating the article at User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya and then ask for opinions as to whether it is ready to be published in wikipedia as an article (even as a stub).

You may want to consider joining the wikiprojects Video games and Massively multiplayer online games. They have guidelines about new articles, and are a community devoted to creating and improving the video game and MMORPG articles on wikipedia. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already edited articles, and there was no article on "shaiya," and other's have been searching for an article on "shaiya" but didn't find one, and were to lazy (or didn't have time to) create one, as such I decided to start one.

If I post the article at User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya am I guaranteed that it won't be deleted by an admin from there?

Supposing I do post it at User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya, how am I to get people to find it such that they will help in the editing of it? Will it show up if users make a search query of "Shaiya" at Wikipedia.org? And, assuming when posted on User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya, it does get developed and when reviewed, is deemed ready to be published on wikipedia, how do I go about publishing it without it being deleted again? Must I post some tab which contains a link about it's discustion and in which people said it was ready to be published?

How do I join wikiprojects Video games and Massively multiplayer online games?

Thanks for your first response, and I await a response to this follow up message.

== Deletion of "Shaiya" for Blatant Advertising -- WHY? (3)==

Perhaps you're not understanding here, I'm not saying those articles are about non-notable websites, or advertisement. I'm saying they're fine, and are a part of many lists of online games. I noticed some lists of online games were missing the game "Shaiya," so I decided to make an article for it and add it to the lists. Gamers frequently visit those lists in search of games they could play. Why should a game not be included because it's inclution would encourage people to play? Don't people visit lists of games for that very purpose? To read about them, and if they like what they read, play them? I know I do... So, I suppose you'd say even though it has 1,840,000 hits on Google "Shaiya" is not significant? Is there bias in game review sites such as mmosite.com and that's why it's not an appropriate third party source? I don't think Shaiya's developers pay mmosite.com to write a good review for their game. mmosite.com specializes in writting reviews for games; wouldn't a good review imply shaiya is at least somewhat significant? If it were not significant, they would probably rather avoid the work and not even write a review for it, or if they did write a review for it, it would be a negative review stating how/why it's not a good/notewothy game. So, if game review sites are not reliable, third party sources, how/why aren't they? And, if game review sites are not reliable, third party sources, what type of sources would you consider reliable, third party sources?

I checked the sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox and it states the sandbox will be automatically cleaned every 12 hours. Why write the article there, only to have it automatically deleted within 12 hours? Or is that not the sandbox you were talking about? Is this "sandbox" you're talking about the same as I mentioned before: User:Nicolasjager/Shaiya? How do I know that one won't also be automatically deleted every 12 hours? Could you give me the URL to the sandbox/place you're saying I should post my article? Also, you still haven't answered my question: If I post it where you're saying, will people be able to see it if they perform a search on Wikipedia: with search query "Shaiya" such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=shaiya ? If not, how will people (other than the people I speak/write to) be able to find, and contribute to the article?

Just to let you know that both CaptainVindaloo and I have offered to help this user out with improving the article. Please give me a shout if anything else crops up. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. I was just thinking that myself. --Onorem♠Dil 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But it Does add something to it.... G. Edward Griffin

(LakeOswego (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

can you add this link back Please

• Freedom Force International

(LakeOswego (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi Mike, and thanks for your constancy in level-headedness. Noticed your AFD comment: "crummy citations to blogs and forums ... the presence of so many non-reliable sources". So that I understand your perspective, I listed the sources that need special care out of currently 26. I count 3 self-pubs, 2 New American (for backup only), and 1 Marquis Who's Who, all used within WP:SELFPUB limits; 1 Slashdot review, notable because linked on its homepage; and 1 USA Daily (for backup only). That leaves 18 reliable sources, a couple of which might be trivial. Also, Free deleted 3 reliable sources, 2 of which might be trivial. Well, I can see there may be no need to retain the USA Daily cite. But do you really think this amounts to "crummy citations to blogs and forums" and "so many non-reliable sources"? Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

i dont know why im being singled out but i have supplied u with notability and plenty of outside refs whats the problem and now i cant even edit it if i wanted to Henslee57 (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC) i have used similar entries as my template i have everything they have why do i get deleted Henslee57 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no reliable sources, you have provided no evidence of notability, you have not removed any of the promotional/self-aggrandizing content of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

how can i edit since u locked me outHenslee57 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

could u call my boss? Robert Henslee <redacted> IWant to do this right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henslee57 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

? I haven't locked you out of anything. It appears User:East718 deleted the sandbox as a recreation of deleted spam; you may need to talk to him/her. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

would u pls call me i have something u may be interested in Henslee57 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. There is no communication you could make to me that could not be done either on these talk pages or by sending me an e-mail. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If u look at my talk page im being told u r the one who protected my page what can i do to edit my article BEFORE its deleted Henslee57 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive read some of my talk page responses from u and noticed one i had not seen before i missed it for some reason i have some major edits could u pls let me try to fix it ill have u look first before final entry so i dont have to aggrivate u any further PLEASE let me try to make this work??Henslee57 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox page is now only protected against anonymous and new accounts. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just of note, a few editors (myself included) had been working with Henslee to try and bring this article up to snuff. At this point, I think it's a failed project (can't find any reliable sources at all). That, combined with Henslee's COI would lean towards the article being deleted.

For some reason though, the page was protected instead. I'm confused why that was done instead of deleting it outright? -- Kesh (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been leaving it to the judgment of other admins as to whether the sandbox version should be deleted. Stacey keeps insisting they have legit edits, so I've removed it from full protection. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping in to let you know that you can protect non-existent pages now. east.718 at 05:02, March 6, 2008

hahalol ur so funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henslee57 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just got your message about linkspamming, are you confusing me with the guy that keeps restoring the link to that forum? I removed that link twice myself. I've been restoring the link to gamebooks.org because it was there before and it seems pretty much accepted that it's the best info resource for gamebook online - it features as either an external link or reference on most gamebook related articles. EvilRedEye (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm afraid I totally fail to see your point, can you please explain what you mean by advertisement in more detail? EvilRedEye (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get another opinion I'm happy with that but it seems to me to be a totally open-and-shut case. Without exception those are all historical adverts from the '80s. All the external links policy says on the subject of advertising under 'links to be avoided' is: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." Do you really think historical adverts about gamebooks (that are mostly out of print) on a information site about gamebooks is an 'objectionable amount of advertising'? There's a reason that site is the first Google result for 'gamebooks', it's by far the best resource on gamebooks on the Internet. It seems silly to remove it for such a trivial reason. EvilRedEye (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. :) EvilRedEye (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike, after glancing over your user talk page I am throughly disgusted that you would have the audacity to delete the wiki page for Joel Stoner! You, of all people, should see the importance in the creation of his page. Stoner, one the top candidates for the libertarian party, is no joke. Check his bio out for yourself at the official website of the Libertarian party. Link Long live small party politics in America! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstonerfan (talk • contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC) — Jstonerfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I apologize if my edit summary on Gilmorton [5] sounded harsh; it was not intended to be so, but looking back at it, it might be construed in such a tone. Yngvarr (c) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it took me a while to get it... -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PS that is quite easily the most orange I have seen on one guy yet, and it matches too! Good on you for picking such a fantastic colour! -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Me to Ben Stein on his show: "Quiet good taste is the key. Once I learned to avoid that, I could find a look that worked for me." Of course, for Mar. 17, I even have green underwear! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (Pat's brither, and a 32-county patriot)

I am the developer for Industrial Scientific, we own the copyright, this is my first post, how do I keep this from being deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCourt (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed that you cleaned up the linkspam on Girl Genius, which I'm completely in favor of; have a question though on the link to Othar Tryggvassen's Twitter. I thought your deletion might have been accidental since it's maintained by the Foglios, but wasn't sure that there wasn't good reason on your part to delete it, so I thought I'd ask you about it. ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha..makes sense. Do you think it'd be acceptable to include a link to the Twitter in Othar's section of the article? Rachel Summers (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Otay. Thanks for the input! Rachel Summers (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective it seems your tone is rather condescending. Why dont u help a girl out and send me a rewrite example from my article. Might actually save yourself alot of time, unless of course your enjoying this?? Henslee57 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem now thats what i was trying to get to can we talk or what? Henslee57 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear on this category. The current membership includes African-Americans, American Indians, an apparent caucasian from the Caribbean, South-Asians... It seems like it needs a definition of who/what should actually be listed in the category. Of course, every SF writer has some color.Shsilver (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Toby looks pretty damn Caucasian to me. Shsilver (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He's a Caribbean Author and his work is based on people of Color. I didn't create the category to make controversy. I created it to enrich the understanding that people of color there are in the SF genre. Also I'm basing the people in the category from the Carl Brandon Society. Maybe being included in the category is less about pigmentation and more about orientation. (sorry about the rhyme) - Booksellergirl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail addresses are not generally forbidden as usernames (though they are discouraged for technical reasons), can you explain (beyond "showed up on WP:UAA") why you blocked this user? —Random832 14:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about it really (if he requests unblocking it can be dealt with then), but the problem is, unlike redacting something from a talk page post (which is done mainly because people are naive about spam etc), blocking causes inconvenience to the user. —Random832 14:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on the Village pump seems to be that this may be unwise, but is not forbidden. I've unblocked Tony, with an apology. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just reported him, again. According to his own statement, he's disrupting to make a point. Honestly, I've had enough. Again. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my User page, not once but twice.
I honestly do not know what I did to this user, but it seems they really hate me (vandalised the page 6 times).
Thanks a lot for reverting their non-constructive, obscene, and very uncivil edits. I owe you one ;)
Cheers!
Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And he/she expected that page to stay? Odd.

Thanks again!

Cheers!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi..I have changed my article Youth United in terms of the no of third party sources. the problem earlier was referred to as the lack of third party sources in the article Youth United. I have included 4-5 third party sources to justify the notability of the article. this was the only problem I was told and I request you to kindly consider this article this time as it is not violating any of the policies now. I am putting a hangon template on this article. I further request you to remove the speedy deletion tag as this article is now complying with all the wikipedia policies, or at least solving all the problems as were told by wikipedia administrators earlier. The article was deleted by wizardman earlier so i have left this message to him in his talk page:

an article Youth United, created by me was deleted by admin wizardman because it was supposedly not complying with some of the wikipedia policies and usages. However i tried to go through the details and I found that the main problem in the article Youth United was the lack of third party sources to prove the notability of the organization. I tried to remove this problem by quoting a lot of third party sources to prove the worth of the article in the wikipedia. I believe I am not violating any of the wikipedia policies this time and at the same time I also believe that I have satisfied all the criteria of wikipedia for this article to be published here. other problem is with the logo of the Youth United, regarding some copyright issues. This logo is the property of the Youth United organization and hence the President of the Youth United is the owner. The logo was created by a designer of the organization and this logo is used in all the references of the organization including its official website www.youthunited.in, which is registered with the name of the Founder President of Youth United,Jyotindra Nath. The logo is being used under his permission and hence it does not infringe any Intellectual Property Right issue of India or other country. Therefore I am again uploading the same image, testifying its non infringement towards any copyright issue. seeking your cooperation. Thanks Extolmonica (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You may consider looking at note nos 3,4,8,9,10,11,12 and 14, which are from National Newspapers online links. Challenging the reliability of these sources are out of question. They are what you were looking for. I guess you missed the new sources, which are wholly neutral and reliable in nature. These links are from some national newspapers like Times of India, Amar Ujala and few online news websites. Extolmonica (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

you might be referring to the note no 8. Consider reading it carefully. It never said several NGOs including YU. It said students and staff of several NGOs were the part of the audience. In the third paragraph it was clearly written that this event was organized by YOUTH UNITED in asscoiation with Chandigarh Police. There are as many as 5 different links which clearly states about the Youth United. I have been resolving all the issues which were told to me. earlier u said that few third party sources are required, now I made available 5 third party sources, that too from reputed newspapers. then also you are propagating a very abstract issue. The definition of the notability of the organization was limited to the availability of the third party sources. now you are saying it is not kind of substantial. I am not understanding as what is the need to make it the issue now. I have resolved all the issues. I have been cooperative like anyone. now i request you to be kinda same. seeking your cooperation. Extolmonica (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

on the very first hand I object that those sources do not meet the requirement laid by the definition provided by you. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. this topic is notable because it has received significant coverage in national newspapers links, which can not be said non reliable. further these newspapers cover the incident and not the organization, and in the progress of covering some noble events they mentioned YOUTH UNITED. so the coverage is absolutely independent of the subject. I again request you to be cooperative so that together we can improve the wikipedia. regards, Extolmonica (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• • now consider reading the top portion if this Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which clearly states that:
    1) this is a guideline and not policy
    2) it should be treated with common sense and OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION
    3)reliable sources are required when some facts are to be proven (not to mention i aint proving any fact here.
    then consider reading this

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which clearly states that If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it..
I hereby request you to be cooperative this time. thanks Extolmonica (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Halp. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But you forgot to indicate the length of the block. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

511 Gallery should have made the cut. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, I just feel (after doing some checking) that the article notable enough for inclusion. I agree that it sorely lacking in secondary sources and citations. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo, can you please reverse this edit? There already exists an article at Karma to Burn (album) that concerns a different band; your move creates ambiguity. Thanks, скоморохъ 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift and appropriate action. скоморохъ 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, my article Michael Francis Wiley was sourced first of all. Two reputable news sources have articles about this guy. Secondly, it was not meant at all as an attack page. I think the guy's awesome. Help me make it better rather than just deleting it. I wrote this on the talk page and plan to pursue the matter further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbroderick271 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you speedy deleted my "Disputed notability" template. Since apparently the template I was able to come up with wasn't up to Wikipedia's standards, can you please point me in the right direction as to how to get those issues addressed? Specifically, I'm hoping to wind up with something which can mark pages whose notability is being actively discussed, and to make it obvious to other editors that it may be appropriate to wait until that debate has concluded to mark the page under AfD for notability reasons, since this almost became a problem in a couple of articles I've been working on. Thanks for your time. Dalamori (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is sourced. I don't know how to make it sound like he's not a danger to all around him. Help me do that. I don't think it's constructive to just go around deleting articles for not fitting exactly into what an article is supposed to be according to the endless pages of guidlines and rules that infest this place. This is a cooperative project, no? We're supposed to working together. I only stated that I think he's awesome to make it clear that I don't want it to be an attack page and I'm happy to do what it takes to make the article work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbroderick271 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i understand the notibility issue after rereading the guidelines. This is a great organization and I was just trying to call more attention to it. Can I add a local chapter to the National CASA page? If it is the only local chapter mentioned on the page is that okay? Anyway thanks for notification that my page was not in regulation- it was my first shot trying to create a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casakat (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ok! I had just read this the wiki regulations page: Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

But thanks for letting me know it wouldnt work before trying that. My first response to you was short- I just didnt understand what 'planet-wide nobility' met. No peronal offense taken- i know you have a job to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casakat (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My page was deleted so I added the hang on and when I posted my response to why it shouldn't be deleted it was already gone. Did you review the talk page for PointClickHome? This is a website that is now the sole online home of Elle Decor, Metropolitan Home, Home Magazine, and Woman's Day special issues which are brands of Hachette Filipacchi Media which has been in existence since 1826. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutdahl (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will re-submit if we can provide the sources that Wikipedia requires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutdahl (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. You've agreed with me on some of the issues surrounding the questionable-quality Fruita Mansana page, and I wondered if you could give me your opinion on what to do about a couple of additional pages by the same user (ArnoldZippo). As with Fruita, he's showing some real ownership tendencies on Three's Christmas and Chrissy's Date, which he recently wrote - he's removed speedy delete tags, as well as plot, unsourced and notability tags. Do you know if there is a recourse for this? Should I maybe just put the articles up on AFD? I'd love to hear your opinion. Cheers, --Dawn bard (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The links that I made reference noteworthy industry analyst reports commenting on software quality solutions. The analysts in question (Gartner, Ovum Ltd., etc) do not provide these freely (in other words, they are not freely linked on their website). Rather, these analysts perform industry research and are "though leaders" on a range of topics which companies subscribe to for thousands of dollars per topic. The subscribers then use this information to facilitate research and purchasing/development/methodology/etc decisions regarding software quality solutions (or whatever topic they subscribe to).

Additionally, Gartner, Ovum, and other analysts typically allow the companies being reported on to purchase reprints of their research and analysis, which the purchaser can then make available via their website. This is what has occurred in this case. So, although the links point to the Compuware website, the referenced press releases and associated reprints represent the original, published, and licensed for distribution intellectual property of credible software quality analysts (which are linked via the Compuware website as Compuware has purchased these reports and been licensed to redistribute them). In fact, short of you or I paying thousands of dollars to reprint these reports ourselves, this is the only way to access the analysts' opinions.

Both Gartner and Ovum rank Compuware and Compuware's TestPartner software as a leader in software quality and software testing solutions, which I would argue is a credible and reasonable source for establishing the notability of TestPartner in relation to Wikipedia's criteria. If this is not the case, could you suggest specific examples of what sort of information could be provided to otherwise establish the notability of TestPartner?

In terms of the Compuware TestPartner vs TestPartner conversation, I agree with you that Compuware's website is not consistent.

TestPartner talk 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) pfhjvb0