User talk:Orangemike/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Orangemike, "Spam" has to do with intent. If you checked the revision history of Willowick Place, Houston you will find that I wrote the article. Mike, I am not a spammer. I am a longtime Wikipedian who has been here since 2003. I wrote about this neighborhood because publications like the Houston Chronicle and the Houston Business Journal wrote about it. Now, you could suggest something to rewrite - what do you think should be rewritten? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, let's look at this: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." - How is this promoting an entity? As the CSD criteria says, simply having a product as its subject is not enough. It has to be written in a promotional manner. How is this written in a promotional manner? It doesn't have statements like "Buyers will surely find luxurious, voluptuous spas that everyone will surely enjoy" or something like that. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've made a *ton* of neighborhood articles in Houston. Those that are "good article"s are Gulfton, Houston and River Oaks, Houston

When I make neighborhood articles I add school info for every neighborhood or community from Pleasantville, Houston to Briargrove, Houston. Education sections typically list schools by attendance boundary and any private schools within the community or listed by community websites. I must also add that Lamar and Lanier get kids from all over Houston, not just the wealthy areas; Lamar High School (Houston) and Lanier Middle School (Houston) give more detail about that.

I don't see how it fits the speedy criteria; generally that is to be used when its clearly an advertiser who only intends to promote his community.WhisperToMe (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Thank you for withdrawing the speedy :)
• 2. Generally I judge notability based on how often a subject appears in reliable sources. The Houston Business Journal had an entire article about how City Council voted to close a street so that this development would open. The Houston Chronicle also had an entire article about this area. I'll see if I can find more sources about this community so I can further establish notability.
• 3. The differences between the Milwaukee neighborhood articles and the Houston neighborhood articles may be partly due to population. Milwaukee has 602,782 as of 2006 while Houston has 2,208,180 people as of 2000. There are more neighborhoods and there are strong neighborhood identities. What I do is often consolidate multiple subdivisions into the same article if the subdivisions have the same homeowners association (i.e. Braeswood Place and Sharpstown). Also Houston includes some areas that used to be distinct unincorporated communities, such as Almeda, Genoa, Kingwood, and Mykawa - Also from sources like the Chronicle I can gain information about unique cultural and political information about each neighborhood, such as voting information and annual events. Having said that, I would encourage those participating in Milwaukee articles to see if some neighborhoods with strong identities that have not broken off from the main article can be expanded and broken off. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hallo...you've just deleted an image I uploaded yesterday Image:Bermudian Pound Bank Notes.jpg. This was marked for speedy deletion by another contributor almost immediately, as he protested that I had obtained the image (or accompanying text) from another website or printed source. When I pointed out that this was not true,that I had photographed notes in my own collection, he said (today) that his actual objection was that while i created the image, the designs on the notes (and other currency units) were copyrighted, and that I should re-license them as non-free and provide rationales for the uses of the image. i've no sooner figured out how to do this and complied than you've deleted the image. I'm starting to think that a lot of contributors, on Wikipedia, delight in deleting the uploads of others for reasons that may or may not be spurious. Could you possibly have entered into a dialogue as to what in my rationales were lacking, or perhaps suggested how I might better present a rationale? Or was your sole interest the immediate deletion of the image? I think you owe me some constructive criticism.

Aodhdubh (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You said, in relation to The Foxes "ONE official site; no blogs, no Myspace, no Facebook; ONE)"

Actually, as per WP:EL Myspace, Facebook, Blogs etc are acceptable as long as they actually are official and belong to the said party. The quote about links to avoid says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• EDIT: I found that there was a discussion at Talk:Stephanie Adams about social networking and some editors agreed to not link to multiple official websites. I decided to start Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Linking_to_multiple_official_sites_and_social_networking_sites to clarify this among WP:EL. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• "an official page"; but that means one. Yes, if their only official page is Myspace or whatever, then that's their one; but only one. That's what I meant; sorry if I was unclear. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, it's alright :) - In any event I decided to make sure it's clarified at WP:EL as there have been previous discussions about it on various article talk pages - it's just that I want a record of it on WP:EL so that the policy is clarified and/or amended if needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Since then the discussion pretty much says that linking to social networking sites is a judgment call; on one hand if the content is not much different or useful, it may be best not to link to it, but at the same time you can't exclude one official site just because there is another already linked; one could have info the other does not. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello you deleted my article Slurpee Capital of the World claiming I was advertising, could you please explain how I was advertising?

--Daniel (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for nailing this recreation, Orangemike. Do you think you could just check the deleted article please, and tell me the name of the user who recreated it? I am requesting a CU against this user, since I have reason to suspect the recreator was a user abusing a multiple account. Thanks, Orangemike! --Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for that information Orangemike. It will get put to good use in about 30 seconds flat :) Cheers. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this was a speedy candidate. It's a Six degrees variant and I turned up google hits for it but all of them appear to be blog and forum posts. I was about to send it to AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A note on notability: My article on a certain Sergio Bernadin was deleted (quite speedily) because it lacked notability, despite its seeming to meet all of the requirements under A7 and the criterion for notability. Although young, he is a public figure of note with multiple published articles available (referenced) and one that would be considered a figure of note by well over 1,000 people. There are at least four other people ready to work on his page, and I was surprised to have found it a candidate for speedy deletion. That said, I was wondering what exactly led to the deletion of his page. Thanks in advance,

Agentsmith1818 (talk) November 28, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

Granted, in the grand scheme of things, he may be less-than-notable. Your bio does indeed suggest that you lean towards 'deletionism' so I suppose the article's deletion is arguably reasonable. My question then is, how does a new article become flagged for deletion? Did you sift through new articles to find Sergio Bernadin, or did the page's word count/reference count render it "non-notable" before you even came across it? Addendum: is there a system in place for targeting the less-than-noteworthy articles already on Wikipedia? (e.g. John "Beatz" Holohan, Gabe Rotter) If, of course, you have the time to answer such questions. thanks for the prompt response.

Agentsmith1818 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In regard to this article, I don't believe it should have been deleted as a WP:CSD A7 as non-notable. Would it be OK to restore the article? I think that additional sources can be provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please restore this article. I don't believe it was a speedy candidate. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Looking at the previous AfD, it looks like the article that was deleted back then was lacking in significant coverage. The new article that I wrote certainly wasn't.--Michig (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If an artist has received significant coverage, that is sufficient for notability. Please restore the article.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Skyzoo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Michig (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was the page deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by James Harland (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 December 2008

Blatant Advertising? For what company? Enjoy the pedastal you put yourself upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.226.238 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 December 2008

It was self-praise for GIS Developers as a profession; self-deprecating and humorously-phrased, but advertising nonetheless. In no sense was it encyclopedic content; it might have had a place on an editor's userpage, but not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes a great deal of sense. Thank you for the explanation, please accept my apologies.

I'm requesting that you undelete:

19:26, 16 July 2008 Orangemike (Talk | contribs) deleted "TCP delayed acknowledgment" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify subject)

Clearly there is context. The page obviously has something to do with TCP. It was also linked to from Nagle's_algorithm. In fact, I tried following the link from the Nagle page and got the deletion notice. I don't know what was on the deleted page, but even a stub would have been better than nothing.

17:51, 2 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladen (talk • contribs)

Hello Orangemike,

I have read the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and she fits at least 6 of the criteria required. Could you explain to me how she would not have a page, while other lesser known musicians do?

Thanks

12:08, 3 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fueledbyhayley (talk • contribs) — Fueledbyhayley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello Orangemike, I am the author of the article Pete Snyder, which I noticed you recently tagged with the COI and tone warnings. I'm right with you on holding Wikipedia to high standards and applaud your vigilance, however I hope you will take a second look at my editing protocol as well as the article itself and see that I have sought to uphold those standards.

Most importantly, I am very mindful of WP:COI and in writing and proposing the article, I believe I have exercised great caution. I first posted the article to a subpage in my userspace, then sought feedback at the Help desk, where two uninvolved editors agreed that the article was good and encouraged me to move it into the mainspace. A third editor, initally skeptical, also commented on the Talk page saying I had "gone about this in exactly the right way."

I believe there is no conflict between my edits and the aims of Wikipedia; the article is a good one, meeting and exceeding site policies, including but not limited to WP:BIO and WP:V. My edits are also informed by the Starwood decision allowing "reasonable" edits to subjects with which one has a deep involvement. I believe my edits here have been quite reasonable. I was very careful with the tone of the article, writing directly from the available sources and keeping a neutral tone, avoiding both promotional language and weasel words.

I am very much interested in working with you to alleviate your concerns, though at the moment I lack the specifics to successfully address them. If you could explain your concerns on the talk page, I would appreciate that. Or, if this comment has satisfied your questions enough for you to withdraw the warning tags, I certainly wouldn't mind that, either. Let me know when you get a moment, and I'm happy to answer any questions about this. NMS Bill (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. Added a follow-up on the Pete Snyder talk page. Please respond when you have a moment. NMS Bill (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Orangemike. Just wanted to see if I could grab your attention again; I'd like to resolve issues with the Pete Snyder article so it can go forward without the warning tags, so I hope you'll weigh in again soon. Thanks. NMS Bill (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Uri Geller"article must be deleted.I report abuse and copyright vilation.--Niki76 (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)niki76

You recently deleted the article Cynthia Basinet, under claims of WP:CSD#A7. The article was nominated for speedy deletion under those guidelines and was promptly tagged with the "hang on" template to allow for a response to provide a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. No time for such response was given: the article was deleted minutes after the hang on tag was placed.

I understand the HO tag by no means prevents a speedy deletion, and should an admin feel the page does not meet the criteria, he/she may delete it as per WP guidelines. However I do believe the purpose of the tag is to alert any admins who would do so to the fact that the nomination for deletion has been noted and is in the process of being addressed. If no reasonable amount of time is afforded the contester, what is the purpose of the tag? I would like to believe any admin would allow at least 24 hours before a speedy deletion under this particular circumstance; certainly more than 10 minutes. I would hope you would keep this in mind in the future.

That being said, the person in question is not only notable enough to avoid speedy deletion, the artist actually meets WP guideline requirements to be considered a "notable" person in multiple categories:

Musician: Cynthia Basinet has

• been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. (articles can be cited if necessary)

• performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (Basinet's recording of "Santa Baby" was featured in the film Party Monster)

Diplomat:

• has participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. (Among Basinet's many efforts, the singer petitioned the United Nations and visited the W. Sahara in 2001 in efforts to raise awareness for the Saharian refugees living in self-determination. She was later nominated for a shared Nobel Peace Prize as part of the “1000 PeaceWomen Across the Globe".)

With these points the individual more than qualifies for an independent biographical article and I respectfully request you have it placed back online as part of the Wikipedia.

Thank you.

--JohnDoe0007 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the Sonichu site. As much as I love the lulz, I will admit that sort of thing should stay on ED. I flagged it for speedy deletion but someone removed it and I didn't feel like getting into a revision war of sort.

Point is, thanks for doing it so soon. --Champthom (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you please explain why Ptawug is not a notable article?

Kind Regards, 196.41.187.15 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to notice that you speedily deleted Sikh extremism even though there was no consensus to delete it at a recent AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sikh_extremism. Just curious if it was maybe in a vandalized state that made it appear to be a speedy deletion candidate? Peacock (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are not being consistent in your evaluation. What is expressed in the article "The Masculine Gender ...," though perhaps inferior in writing style to the article "Comma Johanneum," from which it is linked, is no more non-encyclopedic in content and no more a theological dispute and no more personal research than what is expressed in the article "Comma Johanneum."

In both articles, the subject is the Johannine Comma. In both articles, there is disagreement on whether or not the Comma belongs in the text. In both articles, different sources expressing the various views on the subject are cited. In neither article is the author's personal opinion stated. None of the the three views presented in the article "The Masculine Gender ..." is the author's personal invention. To the contrary, those are in fact the three views that have been held by various people regarding this subject, as confirmed by the two cited sources. That is in fact what is out there.

So what's all this talk about "non-encyclopedic content" and "theological dispute" and "personal research?" If those accusations are true of the article "The Masculine Gender ...," then they are also true of the article "Comma Johanneum." Conversely, if they are not true of the article "Comma Johanneum," then neither are true of the article "The Masculine Gender ...." In applying these accusations to the one article but not to the other, you are not being consistent in your evaluation and you are showing personal prejudice. I submit that the article in question demonstrates more neutrality than do the ones who are making these accusations against it.

As for the writing style, maybe the article is inferior in style. Perhaps YOU should fix it instead of complaining about it and asking for its deletion. I myself don't know how to write it better than it is written. However, the information presented in the article is valid information, and it is NOT personal research, and it IS pertinent to the information presented in the the article "Comma Johanneum," and it DOES cite two sources (Dr. Wallace and Dr. Hills; if you click the links ["pages 331-332" and "chapter 8" in the text of the article], you can read what they say about it yourself) that attest to the three views which have been held by various people regarding this subject, which are explained in the article in question.

7Jim7 (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion may not be the best choice for the Kink.com article. Given the amount of article content, and the notability of the company, was there a reason you felt the article should be deleted? If you see a problem with the article, perhaps adding the appropriate tags would be a good alternative. --Elplatt (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I too think the Kink.com page should be restored. They've been featured in the New York Times, they're involved in restoring the San Francisco Armory and are one of the largest porn sites on the internet. I side with Elplatt in wanting to better understand your reasoning for the deletion. 24.196.117.220 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because this is an online encyclopedia not a haven for well known "porn" companies to get free advertising. Just because someone or entity is "well known" for doing something and was featured in the "New York Times" does not make it credible material for an encyclopedia. Porn, although quasi legal, has carved its niche and 30 billon dollar a year business into the mainstream, but it not something that has its place in an encyclopedia. The kink article is a blatant advertisment, as it lists several of kink.com actors and provides links to their home pages which most if not all are trying to entice people to subscribe and pay money to see their personal porn acts. An underaged person is exactly 2 links away from being redirected from wikipedia to a webpage with explicit sexual images and content. It is written from a non-objective viewpoint strictly promoting a company with the intention to attract more customers. This is not a moral argument over the evils of porn or anything of that nature, rather it is a valid question on what exactly does the kink.com wikipedia have to do with adding to the general body of knowledge and content useful to an encyclopedia free and accessible by people worldwide of any age. -------sig----—Preceding unsigned comment added by Webman1000 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for identifying the things this article needs to make it suitable for Wikipedia. We've made quite a few changes today, and wondered what else you see that might still need work, or if you think any of the flags can come off. --Red Lion, Inc. (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kink.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hollis Mason (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If I speedy delete as G7, then undelete an article and prod it, because in my judgment (endorsed by User talk:Alansohn#Shane P. Davis it is not eligible for G7 because it has had more than one editor, please drop a note on my talk page if you decide to overrule me about whether it is eligible for speedy deletion. The best course is for the original admin (me) to go ahead and re-delete the article. There does not seem to be any urgent deadline for deleting it, when it is appropriately PROD'd and the clock is running. Thanks. Edison (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy the hoax is gone, but note that it was blanked and prod'd and it would have been automatically deleted anyway. Where was the urgency? If an admin undeletes something and another admin the next day deletes it, isn't that wheel warring? If I undeleted it would THAT be wheel warring? Shouldn't there be discussion rather than unilateral action to reverse the actions of another admin? This applies even if you think the edits by others rather than the creator of the article were not "substantial edits." The CSD rules say "one editor," not "only one editor who made substantial edits." I suggest modifying CSD rather than the whole "ignore all rules when it suits me" mode. Would your nose be out of joint if another admin undid your actions without any discussion? Edison (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orange. I don't disagree with any of your conclusions, but can we try resolving the Hayes Trading Co. issue without a block? I find this kind of aggresive. The editor was responding on their talk page and seemed to be quite reasonable. I don't see a reason for "hard" tactics like a block. I'm sure they'd be happy to change their name if we make that request. I would also point out that it seems better for people to identify their conflicts of interest than to come on anonymously or use deception. I hope you'll consider backing off just a bit so we can see if we can explain the situation and take corrective action as appropriate without alienating people who are new here. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Thanks very much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Per my post to ChildoMidnight, I tried to change the username but could not seem to do it. Sorry about the policy violations. I obviously did not read enough, though I thought I created the article using the guidelines for creating articles. I have a new username, whayes12. We could merge the other information to that username if possible or change the Hayestradingco username to "whayes72" if possible. I saw that the External links to OSHA were removed. I did not understand that. If it's a copyright thing, I don't believe any government information is copyrighted. I thought the links would be helpful - encylopedic even to folks dealing with material handling issues - lots of injuries in that industry. I also thought the link to the posters would be helpful for the same reason - we have no relationship with that company, not even an affiliate status, so we reap no direct or indirect benefit from the referral, just trying to help the folks... 67.184.139.50 (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your request strikes me as agenda-driven, and rather surprising for any number of reasons coming from a Wikipedia administrator. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss those reasons. I hope you will reconsider and remove the request from the article's discussion page. MikeGlyer (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike, at J. Michael Straczynski's request the photo for his article has been updated with a photo owned by him and used with his permission. It appears the justification for fair use may not be sufficient. I vaguely remember that have experience in these matters. Please help or offer advice if you can. Please see Talk:J._Michael_Straczynski#Recently-added photo for details. --Dan Dassow (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi – while I agree that this article is in strong need of cleanup, I take issue with several of the tags you have left, and even deleted several. Further discussion at Talk:Kink.com. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. 18:57, 6 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs)

I recently did an expansion on South African wireless user groups, which started life as a trivial article on one particular group. I think there is something interesting here, but am not at all satisfied with the article as it stands. I saw that you had contributed to the earlier version. Any feedback or suggestions would be welcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike; this looks like it might have been an interesting article stub that may have been snipped early. Could you undelete it to my User: space so that I can have a look over it. Many Thanks, —Sladen (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Poke. —Sladen (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Request outstanding 1 week. —Sladen (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• moved from User talk:Sladen#Copied to userspace per your request

See User:Sladen/Sandbox --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (even if it turned out to be only one-line long) to User:Sladen/Sandbox. However, why did you copy and paste the page content and not undelete it complete with history and talk-page nomination? —Sladen (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think the separate material is worth the trouble, I'll move it when I get a chance. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC) on his break

Deleting small/rubbish articles is a very useful service. To copy and paste the text (rather than performing a proper undelete, with history) is effectively a violation of the terms of the GFDL. If a stub article gets deleted, then undeleted to User: space and is subsequently expanded to the point that it can be return from User space to Article space, it needs to remain the same article—otherwise yet more time has to be invested in attempting to merge and find the page history. Once again, thank you for being willing to spend so much time performing this (somewhat tedious) role, it's not a job that everyone can stick out. —Sladen (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike

I noticed you deleted the entry for the band 'Bongshang' and their 'The Hurricane Jungle (album)' I was working on

I'm hoping you can reinstate them as I have a lot more information to add to get them up to scratch

Best wishes

Stumpfoot (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

-Edit-

As you suggested, I've posted a draft in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stumpfoot/Sandbox

I haven't posted entries of the individual albums or uploaded more images as the reason you gave for deleting them was that there wasn't an entry for the band so I'd like your opinion on the main entry before I progress

Stumpfoot (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep deleting this image that I have permission to use without explaining why. Either explain why or stop it.

User:Olsonist —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

You Know, I Didnt really like you blocking my Site for no reason and then when i go to yours i see that you hate President Bush and support impeachment and prosecution. Please tell me why you hate him. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.151.205 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a "conflict of interest" warning on the article, "Matthew Stadler," that identifies me as the conflicted major contributor. I am neither the author of the article nor a major contributor. I corrected factual errors in March, 2007. It was my first edit, and I did not properly source all my corrections, so some were removed. I understand why and have not edited the article again. I recognize that it's inappropriate for me to make any major contributions to an article about my work, so I have not made any. Could you help me by having the "conflict of interest" warning removed? Or help by explaining to me why it needs to remain. Again, thanks for bearing with me as I learn how to contribute to Wikipedia. MatthewStadler (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving this. MatthewStadler (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

G'day Mike

Am following up with the deletion of the IBD Australia Support Group. I started the "hang-on" process and as a relative newcomer here would have appreciated a reply or comment other than "Advertising/Blatant and deletion.

My intention was to re word either the title and the contents. N such luck Mike? the subject matter is still valid, the title and text need to be re done, I agree. No debate, no assistance just deletion.... am not being picky here but if the speedy deletion is due to 'blatant advertising' then its a poor choice.

If the title needs amending minus the "Australia' and content made 'generic' and External Links to reflect a global perspective then why wasn't it communicate to me?

We do this (Wikipedia) because want to educate not to be smart or annoying. If you have any suggestions as to how this entry can remain, be good to hear from you. Zippomk2 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Simon Chorley Art & Antiques. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• • A message for : Orangemike.
    I am just confirming that the message you left on my TAS06 talk page, where I was working on Simon Chorley Art & Antiques before I moved it prematurely, I am trying to post a reply to in the appropriate place. As you will read there have been several recommendations which I will follow and I hope you will be able to allow the page to be further improved as suggested, by reinstating it on my TAS06 page. There I will work on it as suggested, to clean it up, improve formatting and make it briefer. But as stated it is NOT intended to be blatent advertising, but rather an example of a Provincial Auction house, as opposed to an International House (of which two examples are currently listed); it is my ineptitude which most probably gave the wrong impression. The revised article will address this point as well and it will be submitted for approval before it is moved this time! Best regards, User:TAS06 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

I noticed you deleted a Nazi Philophers redirect to Nazi philosophers. That seemed like a good redirect to me so I was just curious. I'm not a big fan of Nazi philosophy, but I picked up the article on new page patrol so your redirect deletion showed up on my watchlist. If you wouldn't mind dropping me a note I'd appreciate it, thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that philosophers with a capital P is an unlikely or implausible redirect. As far as the article itself, it makes me uncomfortable, but it seems to be a notable subject. I have it on my watch list, and I am concerned about the motivations and intent of the article's creators. It's not an area I have a great deal of expertise in. Should it be broadened to include philosophers who opposed those philosophies? Should it include criticisms? It's mostly a list of philosophers of a particular ideology. Is it even fair to call them Nazi philosophers? I think there is a notable topic on the subject, but as far as how best to handle it I don't really have any great suggestions or ideas. I wouldn't want to censor anything to make it more palatable, but certainly it's a difficult subject and concerning subject area. I'm open to considering good suggestions if there's a better way to handle it on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One other thought: is the term "Nazi philosopher" well established and notable? Are they German philosophers? I'm thinking a rename might be warranted.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried moving the article to German philosophers during World War 2, but I got reverted by the article's creator. I put it up for AfD so more people can asess how best to handle the article.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you placed a {{notability}} tag on Trinity Life Bible College, as well as an {{unreferenced}} tag. When you placed the unreferenced tag, there were references on the page. Even though they were first party references, there were multiple, and IMO I think it would've been more appropriate to tag it with {{primarysources}}. But to each his own. I changed the tag since I added another couple of sources. But I wanted to ask you about the notability tag. Since I have added the two new sources since you've been there, would you concede that it meets notability requirements? It has been difficult to find online sources (that aren't mirrors) for this institution. I thought I had previously read somewhere that secondary schools are inherently notable, but I can't find anything besides WP:GROUP that mentions notability for educational institutions. Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I found it. It is WP:UNI/AG#Notability. "All colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia." I'm going to remove the notability tag now. Just thought I'd drop this by and let you know why. Have a nice day! Killiondude (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm bringing an arbitration case against him, and it may have upset him a wee bit. But it helps, he was getting hard to handle. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sidewise Award for Alternate History is in the Category:Science fiction awards category, which is already a sub-category of Category:Literary awards, and categorisation should be as specific as possible. Personally I think it falls squarely within "science fiction awards", and doesn't need duplication in the parent category. You of course may disagree, and that said I leave it to you to decide whether to revert the revert... Misterx2000 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He personally gave me permission to use the image but I have since sent him a link to creative commons requesting that he license an image for more general use. Should I take the one down, that has the copyright on it, even though it's been authorized?Chuck Gregory (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Update: when I wrote that I didn't realize it was already down. No problem, I'll be getting the one with the cc license to replace it and the article is fine sans pic till then. Thanks. Still learning the ropes a little, but trying to follow every policy.Chuck Gregory (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Was curious as to why you deleted it, but more importantly am curious if you can send me a copy of the list before you deleted it as hundreds, if not thousands of Messianics relied on that list. inigmatus (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

G'day Mike I appreciate your clarification. I agree it is a fine line and am not one to cross it, I have enough on my plate. In this instance links to the condition are the only way out and that in itself is a solution to nothing at all... Merry Christmas Zippomk2 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been working with Semmasemma7 and other grad students to do extensive research about Barbara Rosenthal and post an article about her. We had been helped by SoWhy, who has now referred us to you because she(?) says the tags were placed by you. I made some revisions to the first section to comply with your posts: 1 -- I included the needed citation, 2 -- added a NY Times reference that will help attest to Rosenthal's notability. 3 -- simplified the language so it doesn't sound like promotion. They are on my User Page. But: I followed your form exactly for the footnotes, and tried to follow exactly the "ref.../ref" notes where possible, as you can see in the edit version, but I expected them to automatically link, and they didn't.

Would you please link the text to the footnotes? When I placed the same text for both "8" references, I'd expected the number to repeat, but it didn't for me; therefore I just put "8b" in superscript: this for the 8's, 11's, 13's, and 20's, too, just to make the repeated references clear to you.

We are at a loss as to how to transfer this work onto her page. The Wikipedia directions all seem to tell us what to do, but not how to do it. I must admit defeat for us about understanding how to link citations at this point. We have our final critique with our class tomorrow, and then disband. Would you please take a look at that first section of the Rosenthal article, along with its accompanying citations, that I redid on my User Page, and if you like it better than the first section that's there now, could you transfer it please? Or if you don't like the whole thing, but the needed first citation is ok, or any other parts are ok, could you just put that or those up, please? (It would be such a shame to have these missing facts and citations in your possession and not use them.) Then, if you'd like to tell me how to fix things, including what you say is like a resume, I could do it next semester or at another time alone or with another group. We would be most grateful. Originale (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask your assistance in removing the CSD you inserted on the ShockHound article. This new digital music download site is similar to emusic, rhapsody and itunes and other online music sites which are listed on Wikipedia. It is owned by a NASDAQ publicly traded company (Hot Topic) and thus has inherent notability.

I'm in the process of verifying references, and they will be active within 24 hours. This isn't an advertisement, or a fledgling company looking for a marketing platform. I have already added an expansion tag on the website, it isn't necessary for a CSD. Thanks for your time, and have a happy holiday season. --digitalmischief (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to verify my sources, please visit the talk page, I now have my sources listed, including: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/technology/30topic.html I'd also like to give you a plate of virtual baked cookies and a big glass of virtual cold milk to help improve your mood. --digitalmischief

Thanks! You just caught me in mid-edit. I really appreciate your flexibility. Have a great Holiday season! --digitalmischief (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That was not blatant advertising, you didn't even give me a chance to fix it. Very hateful of you. I am putting it back up and continuing to work on it. I put a LOT of work into what I had and I got permissions for ALL images used. I also listed references for the article. :( Please leave it up this time and give me a little more time with my 'hangon' than 5 min.Tallulah13 (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just replied to all your comments on my talk page. I am seriously begging you to give me a chance. It seems like you are just messing with me now. :( Tallulah13 (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee whiz, Mike. I read you comments to to Tallulah13 and although you were probably right about the lack notability and that the article was Spam, you comments to him were a little harsh. It seems as if he was genuine and his heart was in the right place. I know were all get lost in the pain of dealing with PIR authors and sometimes lose sight of the good people. If I have read you wrong here, forgive me and please accept my apologies.ttonyb1 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to come and leave a message to tell you that ttonyb1 contacted me & explained how hard your job can get, but I see that he already came here and left you a message. Anyway... I wanted you to know that I revised my entry for the clothing line & I think that I have made it much more notable now. If you will look in the discussion page of the article you will see even more of an explanation about my changes. I hope that the revisions make it acceptable and that you will take the time to verify all that I have written. I thank you for your time & I apologize if I took your messages out of context. It just really upset me & I am sorry. Tallulah13 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You speedy-deleted 6 Degrees (six-degrees.ca) while I was in the process of entering in the hang-on template after noticing the request for deletion. The article may not have been quite complete as of yet and was undergoing revisions. However, there are other social networks that are linked to from the List of social networking websites article and elsewhere with less information on them than I had at the point of deletion. How can I get back the source of the article in order to continue editing and revising it?

Stew721 (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not web content with no significance. Black Jack Justice was a stage play, a radio play for over two years, has a webcomic, and has spawned a book that has sold all over the world! I love these characters and wish that I could still share the link to information about them with my friends and family! Decoder ring theatre, the radio company that produces Black Jack Justice and other shows (which you didn't delete) is releasing their third book in December, and they are certainly NOT without significance.

Please return this information to wikipedia. For concrete evidence of the existence of all this I invite you to go to http://decoderringtheatre.com/index.htm. It can also be found referenced on an independent site http://www.thrillingdetective.com/eyes/justice_and_dixon.html. You can find all of the episodes on iTunes. I love this show and from a look at your extensive personal page, you would too. (Joss Whedon may be a half-sibling of God.)

Also, I DON'T mean to be rude, but how could you delete this on grounds of insignificance and then make sure the entire internet knows your favorite color and Bacon rating?

P.S. I'm sorry if I'm formating this wrong, I joined Wikipedia just so I could ask you to resolve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamora (talk • contribs) 08:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Shamora 02:50, 12 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamora (talk • contribs)

Mike, you removed the {{db-g11}} tag from Vjoon K4, noting that it is not eligible for speedy delete because it is a software product. As I understand it, that limitation only applies to A7 nominations, not to G11 (spam) nominations. Spam is spam, no matter what the subject, no? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider Ceoltronic or Infopulse blatant advertising, and think that both of them have some chance at notability if they were referenced properly. Please restore them, and either send them to prod or afd. I was about to do so--we seem to be working at the same time. That we have different standards of notability is one thing, and can be resolved by the community in afd as usual; but the standards for speedy are quite specific and I think you are continuing to be seriously out of line here. DGG (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

yep, that line in Infopulse is advertising, but if removed, there might be enough without it. Or perhaps a merge with the owner EDB Business Partner--not that that one is a good article either.DGG (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Since all of these are either g12 or g11, do you want me to keep tagging these with CSD tags or just let you go through the now blocked user's contribs?--Terrillja _talk 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've overturned your deletion of Jennifer Banko-Stewart; IMO there's no possible way this could ever qualify as an A7 (recurring role on a major soap; appearances in multiple notable films; nominated for a significant award). I'm not sure how this one got nominated in the first place, let alone slipped through; feel free to take it to AFD if you think it warrants it. – iridescent 19:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider your deletion of the FindMyPair.com page to be appropriate, as it was a valid objective and informative article describing a company listed and recognized as a popular worldwide dating site. Please restore it, as it was already approved and modified by an administrator prior to your actions, and clearly you have a different standard of notability from myself as well as other admins. Any problems can and should be resolved by the community; but the standards for deletion are quite recognizable and I think you are seriously out of line with your actions, which if not dealt with I will turn to a deletion review. Its strange how one admin already found my entry to be appropriate, but with you a lot of other contributors seem to be having quite a few problems. With your criteria for deletion all other dating site articles (eharmony, match.com etc.) should be deleted, because i would really appreciate an explanation for how my article was any different from theirs. Please restore this page (Royalblue1 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Its great that you've never heard of 'Modern Elet' because you're the ultimate source of knowledge right? and if you haven't heard of it... well then it simply must not exist, or if it DOES exist, well then it must be un-reputable right, because YOU haven't heard of it. You (of course) know everything and anything that has any value in the entire modern world, in fact you should be the ultimate decider of what has value and what doesn't because clearly your education of comic-books and potato chips puts you above everyone else! Hmmm, its a good thing most people don't think like you! Once again I am asking for you to restore the article, SO THAT I may add some further references that you MAY have heard of. (Royalblue1 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry i lost my temper with you but your response to me was very unprofessional after the hard work i put into creating that article and clearly we cannot resolve this issue together (Royalblue1 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

An editor has asked for a deletion review of FindMyPair.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Royalblue1 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Student Venture is the high school ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ, which is one of the largest non-profit organizations in the United States. Regardless of your view of the organization, it does warrant an entry in Wikipedia. I don't remember what was posted on that page, but would be happy to make some contributions to it so that it has more substance. Could you restore the article or provide me with the contents of the deleted article? --Sixtrojans (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at the history of the page? Was it always a direct copy from the student venture Web site or did someone try to expand a stub and think they were being helpful? --Sixtrojans (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth did you leave me a note about "adding promotional material"? I don't recall adding anything at all to the Student Venture article, though I may have made a minor edit at some point. Since the article was deleted, I can't tell for sure. I certainly have no reason to want to promote this organization. - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 10:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am working on the clean-up now. Thank you-thank you-thank you. I have citations in the form of photos/scans of the articles in the publications. Is linking to those ok? If not, can you please tell me how do you want these cited?

Also - I saw that you 'removed irrelevant customer list (notability is not contagious' I wanted to say that was NOT a 'customer list'. It was a list of notable people who have modeled or been published in the LP magazine wearing the line. I feel it is relavent and I don;t really know what you meant by '(notability is not contagious'.

thanksTallulah13 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

please see talk page - thanksLynnMaudlin (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

why did you do that to me {delete the Lipstick Prophets entry]? I had revised it to be appropriate for wiki. I am placing it back up now. This time, please comunicate with me {on the LP talk page}, rather than just deleting without helping/talking with me. Pretty please? I have put a lot of time into this.Tallulah13 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SORRY - it seems I had visited the old entry. My new one is still up. Thank you for understanding. I am going back to the talk page there to address your comment about the photos. :)Tallulah13 (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

related, I see from my watchlist & the deletion log that I completely missed the Capitals/small letter difference & thought I was dealing with the identical article. Thanks. 01:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

... for this. Have a good day! Nouse4aname (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the notability tag can now be removed from Stephan Schulzer von Müggenburg (It should not have been placed there in the first place.) I have also repaired the vandalism and inconsistencies in Elizabeth Gertrude Britton. Thanks Tusbra (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No doubt justified, but the different-by-case only Mems scanner article is almost certainly a verbatim duplicate of the deleted article. The author clearly isn't a native English speaker and has shown no indication that he actually understands what the problems are in his articles. 65.161.114.224 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is IMHO not a valid speedy--the article asserts their international importance as playing with undoubtedly major groups. whether they will pas the afd that was interrupted by the speedy is another matter. 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Hey Mike. I have withdrawn my AFD nomination a day ago, and no one has closed the debate. People are wasting their time debating it. Would you close it so people don't waste any more time? Thanks! Royalbroil 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified on my question in the help desk.
>> Wikipedia:Help desk#Using photo threads on forums to reference --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 11:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied again. thank you:) --Zaher1988 · ^Talk 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mike. Recently you deleted Kiel & Morgan Hotel/Lyon County Courthouse under criteria R3. However, that is precisely how the National Register of Historic Places lists the property, and so the redirect has some value. ("What links here" shows the redirect is used.) Regards. Jonathunder (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the recent List of science fiction authors changes, particularly my removal and the repeated addition of one of the names in the A section and let me know what your thoughts are? Shsilver (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Orangemike, I am concerned about your judgment in nominating this page for deletion.

1. You said that the subject had no Google hits, which you later withdrew once you realized that he did (and it is not clear why that would be relevant -- if the page were just idle boasting of unverified claims, that would not seem to be cause for deletion for a user page).
2. You said that there was a conflict of interest, which makes no sense when applied to a user page. Your own user page was created by you. My user page was created by me. Should our user pages be deleted too for conflict of interest, along with every other user page in Wikipedia?
3. You criticized the user for copying the phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" into the content of the page. Do you realize that the phrase "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" already appears on every single page in the project as part of the MediaWiki installation? It appears on the content pages, the project pages, the editing pages, the history pages -- it's everywhere. In light of that, where is the harm in a user copying the phrase into the content of his page? It would appear on the page in any event.

You have been a Wikipedia editor longer than I have, and an administrator for over a year, so I feel like I ought to assume that you know what you are doing. But this whole nomination seems to be just a case of biting the new user and failing to assume good faith. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why have you deleted the article "caprice (band)"? I had read it before and there was nothing offensive in it. Or what? I just needed it for reference. Denis --Denispir (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Thanks for giving the reasoning for deletion of this article, completely understand. As long as I've got a draft version, I'll reupload when they next get press coverage. I noticed you've also deleted the fact that various organisations are part of this coalition? That seems a little strange as they are keen to publish the fact they are in the coalition, and while people aren't going to be clamouring for that information, if it was there it would be useful. i.e. I work for a number of coalitions and it's a real pain working out who is in what, it would be good if wikipedia could represent the true state of affairs on this. Still a bit of a newbie with some of the wiki concepts. Thanks! Tom --Bearchandler (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.38.95 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please revisit this discussion and specifically respond to Unusual Quite's comment? I think a merge or even a simple redirect would be more productive than deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has been tagged for over a year. I think it is about time that we resolve this issue as soon as possible. American Imperialist (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting a series on orange production like Banana production in Honduras etc. I wondered if you would be interested in helping write some articles on it case studies by country. The Bald One ^{White cat} 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Orange production}}

I came across Special:Undelete/Inna_Korobkina and Special:Undelete/Leslie_Stefanson. Acting in a couple major movies should have been enough to pass A7, I think, and the original "notability" tagging seems rather questionable. Do you have any objections to undeleting these? Gimmetrow 18:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any assertion of notability for these folks: I don't class "best known for playing the part of Third Topless Girl in Porky's IV" sorts of phrases as assertions of notability. Neither of these folks strikes me as meeting our standards for performers; Korobkina in particular seems like a classic nameless starlet. It takes more than an IMDb entry to make a performer notable; heck, I've got an IMDb listing (as does my daughter, for a brief appearance in a documentary when she was 5 years old). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

IMDb doesn't confer notability, but appearances in films do. Leslie Stefanson played the title character in a film with John Travolta and James Cromwell that made $22M on opening weekend in 1999 and about $150M worldwide. Two editors objected to the CSD on the Inna Korobkina article at the time. At the very least, that should have been enough to avoid speedy deletion. Furthermore, these taggings by Gonçalo-Manuel (talk · contribs) were questionable to begin with - that editor was blocked for disruption a few minutes later. Gimmetrow 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that I may be a little pedantic, but users want to say that Obama is affiliated with the United Church of Christ in the info box. I do not think so, and cannot see how he could possibly be in communion with the UCC having renounced his membership without having had it transfered to another UCC church. Please look at the talk page links, if you have a second. the UCC has very independent individual churches as far as dogma and doctrine go , and without membership in a particular church , it is not only inaccurate, but aslo meaningless. Please tell me what you think.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The above user is trying to push his personal interpretation on what constitutes membership in a denomination [1] and he also has an agenda to try to demonstrate that Obama is not actually a Christian [2] and he also presumes to know how often Obama goes to church [3]. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

..the they refered to the other editors, not the obama's. i will crify the confusing antecedent.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken my concerns about Die4's behavior to the ANI page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please have a word with this User talk:Nynewart guy? He gets his nose out of joint every time I try to restore an {{nn}} tag on Travis Price that another editor posted. He apparently sees it as an affront to his sensibilities. He's getting a bit out of hand here. Time for an admin to step in. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This smells of meatpuppetry. I requested an objective editor to view the discussion, not an editor that one of the involved parties ( namely Realkyhick (Talk to me) had personally requested. Also, ou removed a citation from the Price page saying it referred to his site, when it referred to the an important DC architecture blog. Please restore the citation as I have decided to let the article be edited by others to avoid the conflict and waste of time. Nynewart (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case. Thanks for trying to help. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, it's clear you know Realkyhick, so I wil ask you because this user continues to keep opening the wound by posting uncivil remarks on my talk page (see the history at: User talk:Nynewart). Would you please have a word with this User talk:Realkyhick? It's getting to the point of harassment. I've asked several times for him to stop and cool off, yet he keeps coming back making snide comments. I've given up on the Price page as you know and wished him and everyone else well. I just want this issue to end and this user to go find someone else to harass. He doesn't seem to "rest his case", but go on, and on, and on. Clearly there are issues there. --Nynewart (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would mind that you don't delete material in my userspace which I am working on for an article. The reason you provided is not a valid reason. Curious to know how you found this page in the first place? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest you take a look at Putinjugend. Funnily enough, Martintg voted to keep that attack page. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I am continuing to work on the article in my namespace, as I still have dozens of sources to describe the term and its usage. It can be taken to AfD, much like Putinjugend was, and which was closed as no consensus, despite its usage being less than 0.5% of sources. There is a hypocrisy with these editors, as I have pointed out here. Additionally, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of other editors WP:STALKing me and my edits around WP. What gets done about that? Nothing, of course. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, you are a very generous fellow.  :) RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 00:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike, from what I can see, you've been trying to help out with newpage patrol. This is appreciated. Unfortunately, you're not actually helping.

The whole point of the patrol feature is to mark the pages as having been patrolled. You haven't been doing that. Your patrol log looks quite full, but those are all (with one exception) the result of pages that you created being marked as automatically patrolled (because you're an admin).

And if you don't tag them as patrolled, someone else has to - and that someone is usually me. DS (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. I declined the speedy tag you placed on this article. Feel free to take it to AfD if you believe it is indeed non-notable. In my experience, bands that are signed to a notable label and get a whack of GHits tend not to be uncontroversial deletions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

G'day. Can you please explain the blatant copyright infringement issue that led to the deletion of the above article. Did someone add something to it after the initial creation?--Kiwipat (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. Obviously an inexperienced and overzealous fan of the Champ made an edit he or she shouldn't have. Perhaps a reasonable course, if I could request it, would be to reinstate the page rolledbacked to the last edit made by myself?--Kiwipat (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a 26 year old Internet entrepreneur who owns a few businesses and have been researching something called Content Management System all day for one of my companies. One of the few places I can go to get ideas, data, comparisons, et cetera for technology for my businesses is Wikipedia because there is a lot of wisdom is the overall group. My primary function is investing and capital allocation so this external source of information about goods and services outside of my core competence is tremendously useful. Despite the occasional problem, the idea of shared collaboration really is one of the great accomplishments of humanity.

Anyway, I've been working here for hours, reading articles and then researching the specific companies that were mentioned. A few minutes ago, I followed a link to something called "Adobe Contribute" and found it was deleted on the 19th of December for "blatant advertising".

Now, I have no affiliation, nor have I ever, with Adobe.

That said, I just wanted to actually take a minute to register and leave a comment to point out that the decision to delete the information on this product made Wikipedia far less useful to me than it has been in the past. A product that is used by millions of people is certainly going to have some aspects of promotion by virtue of the fact it's being discussed. Even so, for those of us who have real businesses, that generate real jobs, and are trying to find the best technology for our people, it generally sucks when we are trying to research something and the entire page has been wiped out by someone who is more interested in ideological purity than the pragmatic implications of his decisions. It's also insulting to think that as readers, we are incapable of making informed decisions about the products on our own. That type of article is probably only going to be read by those who are interested in the technology and they are experienced with weighing out the inherent bias that develops when someone loves (or hates) a product.

I think the decision to delete the article was idiotic. If the philosophy that led to its removal were more prevalent, Wikipedia would quickly fall below the threshold that makes it the default place to search for information on topics outside of one's own area of expertise. It would then have no reason to exist.

In the meantime, I'll skip to the next product on my list and hope that it has survived the purging.

Freshandminty (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in the article, feel free to recreate it in a way so that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines, and is not merely a page blatantly advertising the product. Dayewalker (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Mike, they're not American and they're not Country but they're a well-known cult band in the UK (mostly through the Red Guitars connection) and they deserve their article. This certainly isn't CSD territory, let alone CSD A7. Can you please restore it. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanting to let you know that my restoration was only done because the tag was removed by the nominator, not because I believed it was eligible for speedy deletion. Just hoping to clarify :) — neuro^(talk) 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike, any chance you can SALT this one and Matchstik, so we don't have to keep tagging and deleting? Thanks! – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Forrest/forrest hasn't been repeatedly recreated, so I can't salt yet; we usually require at least two full recreations of deleted spam before salting. Matchstik, on the other hand, qualified and has been salted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good move, as was the user name spamblocking - dang those admin tools are useful! Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the deleted version and consider if any "fuller deletion" is required. It may be sensitive. No need to reply. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

I noticed that you deleted the aforementioned page on the grounds that it was entirely advertising. Looking at the cache of the page, I disagree that this was the case, and believe that this was an incorrect application of the rule. While it is true that large parts of the article were written in an unencyclopaedic manner, the article was not beyond repair, and in fact, contained sections that were informative. Further, the notability of this subject is very high, as Wipro is one of India's leading IT companies, with $5 bn annual revenues and is even listed on the NYSE.

If it is undeleted, I will bring it to the attention of others at the India portal, who would be able to rewrite it in a fitting manner.

Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings OrangeMike. Would you be willing to take a look at User_talk:Bijouworld's unblock request? Most kind regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If Lazuli hadn't left this message I probably would have undone the block myself, but given that I think it might be a bit presumptuous. It's quite a long-winded request but the gist of it is that the user isn't actually affiliated with the subject they were writing about, and was using the 3rd person voice out of habit as a lawyer, and has promised to obey Wikipedia policies as best as they can.. and has asked to change username. Mangojuice^talk 06:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a point. I made a couple of warnings to the user and have to say that he/she did appear to try and adjust to the issues I was raising regarding proper sourcing and content formatting. I am assuming good faith here and saying I support giving him an opportunity to prove he can edit within the guidelines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that User:Shandynelson is removing the AfD notice repeatedly on the Lisa Wickham article, but does so without signing in. The traceroute shows the anon IP's are in Trinidad and Tobago. Any way we can confirm this and take any action? It's pretty obvious this is a promotional article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you deleted the article Spectralon as "blatant advertising". This is kind of an important optical material, and I think it would be beneficial to have an article on it. Perhaps the original article can be rewritten in a more neutral tone. Could you copy the deleted article into a page in my userspace, so I can see if material in it can be salvaged?--Srleffler (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

E-mailed to user. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that there is no page on the UK's "Urban Task Force" and the logs show that you deleted the page on the 3rd July. I was wondering if the page could be undeleted or if I could have a copy of it as it was actually government body and I'd be interested in seeing what was on the page.--Hazel77 ^talk 11:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

E-mailed to user. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is a hoax, isn't it? There was a historical Milwaukee Telegraph, but it stopped publishing over 100 years ago. I noted that the circulation figures are identical to the Journal Sentinel. Interestingly, the creator of the article tried to blank the page 3 times, but each time it was helpfully reverted. --Sift&Winnow 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I contested the prod. Schuym1 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding books getting or not getting "press." Ok, the truth is I was talking out of my ass. Or, more charitably, I was thinking in terms of academic and reference books that do seem to get at least a "mention" in a "booknotes" type column somewhere, at some point. Again, though, ass talking. Not a professional book reviewer here, so I defer and tip hat to you. Jlg4104 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I should add, in a face-saving gesture, that I try not to contribute off-the-cuff BS, but it happens now and then, and that one thing I really like about WP is the constant demand for verifiable, meaningful statements. Jlg4104 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at The Flower Lounge article? It is suppose to be in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Is is a hoax? Not notable?I let RoyalBroil know via e-mail of my concerns.I hope your wife,family and yourself are doing well.Thanks-RFD (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably want to look at this [[4]]Bali ultimate (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're the first supporter of nationalism (in the Irish republican sense) that I've ever encountered who's had such a fascination with the colour orange.. in a positive sense! Leftist unionism isn't a new thing - much of unionism has its roots in working class politics and in Liberalism. Currently, the Progressive Unionist Party is a left-wing unionist party. That's not to say I support that party in any way - they are too tied up with things I don't want to be associated with. Happy New Year, by the way. :) --Setanta 10:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

I just went to finish editing a page I was creating and noticed that you deleted the aforementioned page on the grounds that it was entirely advertising. I respectfully disagree that this is the case as I was using the Humana (our founding company) page as a template. While it is true that the parts of the article that were live had so far only listed our company founding and mission, the article was not beyond repair, and in fact, contained less 'blatant advertising' than nutrisystem and Weight Watchers.

If it is undeleted, I will gladly finish the edits to include other source materials and external reference links.

Otroad (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Thanks for your feedback. Please check your sources, as I'm no longer the Marketing Manager for the company, but do acknowledge a connection and appreciate your concern of a conflict of interest. Being new to Wiki, I was not aware of this and intially provided a significant rewrite of the text to be more neutral, informational, and containing wholly external citations. Is it possible to get someone impartial to the article to revise/edit as needed? The goal was to create this article as an internal link and learning tool for the Contract Research Organizations article (the oncology side of drug development is the largest and fastest growing section of the industry). I then have been compiling news sources and market data to add to the parent article. Many people are unaware of the significant involvement of CROs 'behind the scenes' in the drug development process and my hope was simply to raise awareness with the goal of informing people about the process and the potential for numerous life-saving therapies out there when there may be no options left. Azupnick (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: Thanks again for the feedback, Mike. At least I got immersed in Wiki processes and language. I'll focus on improving the main Contract Research Organizations article in a neutral way for general consumption and enlightenment, specifically by adding some reputable sources.

My main concern and is that there are "Notable CROs" in the parent article which is neither a comprehensive list nor even an applicable snapshot of the industry's players. If deleting one (Prologue Research), why allow any or even this whole section?? Suggest removing the "Notable CROs" section and even reviewing some of their articles, as they are just as much spam/advertising. Thanks - Andrew Azupnick (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted? I rely on Wikipedia a lot for technology references, and db4o is a popular C# odbms, and is linked to from several pages. I agree there was definitely a section in it that could be construed as advertising, but deleting the entire article under speedy deletion is hardly warranted. I'm a common end user, and I hate to see Wikipedia editors deleting articles in a field that they have no background knowledge of. I understand wanting to keep Wikipedia clean, but my complaint is that the page did not fall under the category of "blatant advertising", please use more discretion in what you mark for speedy deletion.

SaguratuS (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mind taking a look at this page? I'm new to editing around here, but this entry seems to me to read like an advertisement, and it's been prone to vandalism in the past from looking at the diff history, probably coming from students of the College. I'd like to take out the peacock words and call for citations, but I don't want to overstep my bounds as a novice.

Much appreciated if you can spare the time.

—Evaus (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll keep after it. —Evaus (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An article, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, about a notable organisation, was recently created by a new editor Fbarw. An automatic bot tagged the article for deletion on the grounds of a copy violation. Fbarw then copy edited the text, put a {{hangon}} tag on the article as instructed, and opened a discussion section on the talk page. Immediately afterwards you deleted the article anyway. Would you please reinstate this article or place a copy in my user space. I will clear up any remaining copy violations if they exist. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Entrepreneur does 'puff pieces' and Forbes does not? Do you really mean that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonzo33 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your problem? Are you a funny boy?? --Nandonaranja (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your email. I really like Wikipedia and want to do more. I tried to read the rules carefully, but my English is not good (I will learn more this year) and I will be grateful if you can give me direct instructions:

1. Please write me what in my article is “conflict of interest” and I will change it and will remember it for future work.

2. “This article does not cite any references or sources.” - I put in my article “References” and “External links” – is this OK, or I have to do something more? Please advice me.

3. Is it OK to put my few photos of sculptures of Todor Todorov in my article?

I will be grateful to every your correction of my article and will remember it forever. Thank you in advance for your help. Please write me directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simontodorov (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the Rachel Hirschfeld article. I was going to start a new section, but I like this one. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I don't see any sign of it, I thought I'd make you aware of this thread on WP:AN concerning a user you blocked : Wikipedia:AN#PediaPress. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads up per your deleting of above userpage, and indef blocking of account. I have now unblocked, but would comment that I saw nothing untoward with regard to your actions given the (lack of) information provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a situation involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Orangemike. Schuym1 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mike, please can you help me? My reference to Liz Doyle in the Avril Doyle article was deleted (though I've now re-inserted it). Please can you tell me who the deleter was? Millbanks (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

‎List of villains in Ben 10 was merged into the character article, so I don't think it counts under CSD R3 (Recently-created, implausible redirect). It also has a wide range of articles linking to it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMike, in our conflict of interest guideline -- and in our advocacy for Wikipedia in general -- we stress that disclosure of a potential conflict of interest is one of the best things somebody can do if they want to influence a page relating to them. So when a user chooses a username that reflects the web site they're affiliated with, that is in many ways a good thing, and something I wish we saw more of.

You are correct that the username violates [WP:EL]]; however, the web site in question is a government, not a company. There is nothing like a spam campaign going on here; merely a new user who got caught in a bit of an inconsistency among our many policies and guidelines. Should the account name be changed? Yes! But not until after the contributions have been welcomed, and the person has been introduced to Wikipedia. There is no harm being done to the encyclopedia, so there should be no rush to block indefinitely.

As it stands, it's going to take a lot of work to convince this person that Wikipedia is not run by pompous bureaucrats. -Pete (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry -- forgot to paste the link to the userpage: User talk:Www.oregonmetro.gov -Pete (talk)

Mike, it's pretty clear that you must work on a lot of these EL and username issues -- and I appreciate your work. Obviously Wikipedia gets a ton of self-promotional spam etc., and I'm glad there are people like you taking and active role in fending it off. My objection on this issue really comes down to a very tiny nuance: the idea that this person's intentions "may" have been wholly helpful. Our guidelines say we are supposed to assume good faith, not merely acknowledge that it may be there. In this case, there is absolutely nothing to suggest the editor in question had anything but the best intentions; the few edits he/she made simply corrected some phrasing, and updated links to an external site that were already in the article. It's pretty clear that this person was here to help; saying that they may have been would come across as pretty patronizing.

As I said, I can see that this probably just resulted from you moving very quickly through anti-spam work that is very important. But I hope you'll consider this distinction in phrasing in the future. Thanks for keeping the spammers at bay. -Pete (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike -- and sorry if my first note pushed at the boundaries of civility. -Pete (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Oregon -- yes, an excellent place! We're getting all kinds of stuff done on local government stuff -- my current obsessions are our List of Oregon ballot measures and articles on specific legislative sessions, like Seventy-fourth Oregon Legislative Assembly. In fact, yesterday a couple of us went to the opening day of the current session -- Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) got some cool photos. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup comment on his/her talk page! -Pete (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Obnoxious Listeners provides original content in the form of reviews and editorials unbiased by income sources. The site also provides exclusive interviews with up and coming and/or obscure musicians that is hard to find elsewhere. The site is establishing a community google calendar to follow artists/bands already reviewed in terms of release dates and tour dates attempting to give a one stop site for this type of content among many artists/bands. It is no longer a blog, but a non-profit magazine dedicated to quality music. The site frequently receives requests from various artists to be reviewed or featured on the site. There are many links to Obnoxious Listeners from artists' wikipedia pages providing exclusive interviews or reviews.

I would ask that the number of links from wikipedia articles to Obnoxious Listeners as well as the exclusive video interviews from some very well established artists (e.g. Avishai Cohen and Riverside (based in poland)) be considered as evidence that this site is indeed unique.

This page is in no way created to cheat the system. It was only created to provide historical reference, identification, and referenced information on a popular web magazine. If any aspect of the page is in direct violation of Wiki rules, we'll be happy to remove those sections entirely in order to comply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcutright (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I understand your comment about links from MySpace and Facebook. That was not part of the argument. There are many links from already established wikipedia articles that point to Obnoxious Listeners and have remained there for some time. Having face to face interviews with these artists that has been video taped and placed online is certainly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcutright (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — Dcutright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My intention was not to blatantly advertise Ron Stone - he's a very 'well-known' (notice I didn't use the word Iconic) entertainment figure and activist for artist's rights. The article was had a few references - one to the RIAA site. Can I re-write it and resubmit?

Thanks. --Nothingisrael (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, deleting a page because it's incomprehensible. To you maybe. Just wanted to say thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octanesque (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — Octanesque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Whats wrong with the article now ? me and aktsu have come to a conclusion. I have found sources we need for the article. What is possibly wrong now. There is nothing biased in the article. Just because he is my dad what difference does that make ? in fact i am more capable of getting information about him then any body else. ClaudioProductions (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If that user who wanted to create the article about CCNB returns (user name was blocked), and is really interested in becoming an editor, then I would be willing to try to help. I'm fairly new as well, but it could be a good learning experience for me, as well as keeping another editor. If that person contacts you, feel free to offer my help on getting an article created. I saved the text, and would be willing to work on it with them so it wasn't COI, and Advert. Ched (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK .. thanks for the tip, I did leave the message. I guess if they return before the page is gone they'll see it. That's my good deed for the day ... LOL. Ched (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was not aware one could do that. Thanks. Linuxguymarshall (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, that was definitely not an appropriate page to delete as G1. It was certainly unreferenced, made-up, and non-encyclopedic, but it was not nonsense. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the current wording of G1: "Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases." I stand by my assertion that G1 was inappropriate. Having said that, I think the outcome was correct, just not the rationale. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty junior as an admin, so I've been simply leaving things that A) should definitely be deleted immediately, but B) I couldn't reasonably put them into a specific CSD category. I would favor addition of an IAR speedy category, so that we can distinguish non-encyclopedic, WP:NFT-violating neologims from "Fritos are actually aliens which can eat your gall bladder" or something like that. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You deleted this along with the commons file, but I think people will be upset if they see that all that discussion about the file was deleted. Could you possibly undelete it and move the discussion somewhere else? (possibly one of the talk pages where the image is linked)-RunningOnBrains 03:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike,

I see you have been editing Pentaho which you and I both seem to agree was too spammy but not so much so as to warrant speedy deletion. (I was the one who removed the tag)

I also notice that User:64.132.248.34 has been editing as well. I looked at a few edits and it looked a little bit like an edit war but I don't have time to go through and analyze all the edits. Could you take a minute to describe what you see as happening between you and User:64.132.248.34? Is the editing process collegial and productive? There's nothing in the edit summaries to indicate otherwise. Let me know if I can be of assistance.

--Richard (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a preferred forum for bringing such (spamming) accounts to admin attention? (I can pick up an answer here) (John User:Jwy talk) 01:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks like the right place. Thanks! (John User:Jwy talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed that twice in the past month or so, you have CSD'd NetCracker as a G11 tag. I was recently talking to the author's creator and admin Juliancolton, and I agreed with them that the text of the article (now located here) did not fit G11. Can you please consider undeleting that article? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here [5], did you have to delete the message as well as the lyrics? DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike,

I have a strong distaste for the so called 'gods of the new world' aka wikipedia editors. Over the last two years it's been obvious that either they are drunk with power, feel they define culture, or don't like it when someone else knows more than they do.

For some reason I decided to browse around and look at the pages of emerging artists and realized that you removed the page of Savannah Outen based on...

(A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)

Are you serious? Do you think you're the next Lou Pearlman to make a judgment call like this? Here are some loose facts for you...

-She's the only unsigned artist to have a song break the Top 10 on Radio Disney
-Had the Most Requested song of the day on Radio Disney multiple times.
-Featured as a guest on Radio Disney multiple times.
-Her song "Goodbyes" will be on the new Radio Disney Jams 11 CD.
-Her music video to "Goodbyes" made the Top 50 in sales on iTunes.
-Toured the Fall of 2008 with Nat & Alex Wolff (Naked Brothers Band)
-14th Most Subscribed Musician (All Time) on YouTube
-Featured on PopStar Magazine February 2009
-Featured on Top Entertainment sites MTV's Buzzworthy & Just Jared Jr.

NO PERSON WITHOUT ANY RECORD LABEL HAS EVER ACHIEVED THIS KIND OF SUCCESS.

Sincerely,

Tommy --76.164.9.242 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Rosie Munter, an article that you contributed to, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie Munter. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rogerb67 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. COuld you please restor File:BookofLife.svg which you deleted. It was going to be fixed by the Graphics Lab Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#File:BookofLife.svg. Cheers /Lokal_Profil 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I confess I was flattered that there was a wikipedia page about my bodybuilding exploits. Now that you've deleted it, I can't help feeling a bit miffed, particularly in light of the grounds used for the deletion. i.e. as being "web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". In fact, the very issue of being a vegetarian bodybuilder - successful in competition - is not only unique in the sport, but has generated such a plethora of fan mail and comments numbering in the many hundreds. All of these comments contain variations on the message "thanks for demonstrating that it can be done."

Perhaps you should reconsider the deletion. Or at least, re-examine the grounds you have cited for deletion. --VegBB (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Steve Holt

I took a look at the guidelines for athletes. In amateur sports, bodybuilding is not represented at the Olympics, probably because of the steroid issue. However, in bodybuilding there are two distinct streams: Drug-tested (aka "natural") and non-tested. Within each stream there are various independent sanctioning bodies. In Canada, I am a member of the Canadian Federation of Bodybuilders (CBBF) - an affiliate of the IFBB. In terms of my history, I have twice competed and placed at the National level - the highest level for my country Canada. These are known as "World Qualifiers".

My current titles include: Aug/06 CBBF World Qualifier, 2nd Place, Open Welterweight Aug/06 CBBF World Qualifier, 2nd Place, Grandmasters (age 50-59) Jun/06 OPA National Qualifier, 2nd Place, Grandmasters (age 50-59) Jul/04 CBBF World Qualifier, 3rd Place, Grandmasters (age 50-59) Jul/04 OPA National Qualifier, 3rd Place, Masters (age 40-49) Jul/04 OPA National Qualifier, 1st Place, Grandmasters (age 50-59) Apr/00 ANBC Lion County Classic, 5th Place, Masters (age 35-45) Mar/00 BAO Regional Championship, 3rd Place, Masters (age 40-49)

In terms of the criterion you quoted "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport", I think the above should qualify me. VegBB (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

--VegBB (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Mike, I'd appreciate a response when you get a minute.

Hello, I was wondering why the John Dwyer (musician) article was speedily deleted? I think he, as a prolific artist of a well publicized music underground, is notable enough to be included on wikipedia. While the article arguably needed some cleaning up, it was not deficent. For example, the discography section was more detailed then any available elsewhere and was indeed quite a useful reference.

Best, JohnKlax (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike - I've rewritten the article for Ron Stone. I'm having problems showing my inline citations. If you get a chance, can you assist - or point me in the right direction. I tried following the guidelines of the inline citation tutorial on Wikipedia.

Hope you think that this article follows the guidelines of Wikipedia better than my last try.

Best --Nothingisrael (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the proposed deletion of the Ballarat Red Devils page by Orangemike, can you please explain why you have requested it be removed. The Ballarat Red Devils are a legitimate sporting organisation in Australia, and believe they have every right to a Wikipedia page, as many many other sporting clubs and groups do. Rduncansmith (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the link in the above warning about Notability for information on our inclusion criteria. --fvw* 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC) For instance, the Bacchus Marsh Football Club is a much smaller sporting club than the Ballarat Red Devils. We do not understand why we are being excluded as I have just researched and found many clubs that have got Wikipedia pages that are less popular, less well-known and have less appeal than the Red Devils. The information that we will be presenting on the page will come from the official Ballarat Red Devils website, as well as the Football Federation Victoria website, and Ballarat media outlets.Rduncansmith (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BALLARAT RED DEVILS I have now been wiating for basically a week and have had no answer to the question that i asked relating to "why is the Ballarat Red Devils had a speedy deletion still on the page that we are trying to start.

Duncan

Ballarat red devils has been speedily deleted (that's why it's a redlink) under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria because it was an Article about a group or club, which does not assert notability. If you wish to work on the article in your user space, please contact the admin who deleted it, Orangemike. – ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (also posted to the Help desk to answer your question there) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rduncansmith" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rduncansmith (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help. Something went wrong on the page Friedrich Karl Georg Fedde, there is a warning and the reference to Brummit does not show. Thanks Tusbra (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been fun researching the article, but I must give much credit to the folks who worked on the Sarah Trimmer article, as I C&P-ed much of the Fabulous Histories article from there, and just reworked it. I just thought it was bad that the article was still a redlink. H₂O Shipper 14:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for clarifying on Thomas Zeumer. This page is full of unsourced information, and it's been the subject of edit wars non-stop, not to mention it's of questionable notability. You suggested I notify an admin regarding deletion or protection, so please consider this me notifying you nominating the page for speedy deletion. Thanks in advance for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.59.164 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note on my talk page. Given your sensitivity to perceived incivility, you might want to take a look at the recent edit history of User:Syntacticus. In the last couple days it includes:

• You are a problem editor [...] froths at the mouth with conspiracy theories. [...] If you are frustrated with your loser life and shitty job (if that's where this inner rage comes from) you shouldn't take out your frustrations on other editors. [...] That will not stand. WP has rules and you don't give a shit about them obviously. [6]
• Are you off your meds today? Syntacticus (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC) [7]
• And so Lulu takes it out again thus confirming he is engaged in an edit war. You, Lulu, are losing your marbles. You seem like you need professional help. Syntacticus (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC) [8]
• [...] Listen to how crazy that sounds, Lulu. It sounds like you are desperately grasping at straws in order to keep true but negative info about ACORN out of the article [...] [9]
• [...] I think it is time that you be blocked not only for your prohibited speculation about identity contrary to WP:OUTING but also for this flagrant act of vandalism. I am growing sick of your conspiracy theories (as if I'm in league with ACORN ex-board members who formed ACORN 8--give me a break) and related shit and I'm going to do something about it. I also don't see why you personally merit an article on WP given your virtually worthless contributions to learning that seem to spring out of your presumably diploma mill issued PhD in a useless subject (it must suck to be stuck in a dead end job after spending so many years in university); however, because I have a personal dislike for you based on your conduct here I will refrain from nominating it for deletion. Syntacticus (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC) [10]
• And PRESUMABLY you just make stuff up. Syntacticus (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [11]

Actually, overall, Syntacticus has been somewhat less incordial these last couple days than is his rule. Moreover, the false information he inserts repeatedly into the ACORN article is also an overwhelming WP:COI, since he primarily cites articles he himself writes for a (low quality) right-wing DC think-tank. Overall, my characterization of his edits as vandalism is 100% correct, and does not contain a hint of incivility, just factual statement. LotLE×talk 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing it: Where does it say she and Patton are partners? (I don't doubt it, but...) Aleta ^Sing 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think using "the beloved" is enough for us to state that they are partners (or to categorize Huff as a lesbian). Note that I'm not saying it isn't true, just that we can't use that for WP to say it. Note discussions at Talk:Jodie Foster - she has actually used the word "partner", but we have determined that it's not enough. Aleta ^Sing 21:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. "f-locked"? Aleta ^Sing 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks! Aleta ^Sing 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good citation to the bio. Thanks muchly! Aleta ^Sing 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I wasn't really questioning the facts, just wanting the citations to be up to WP standards, esp. for bios of living persons. :) Aleta ^Sing 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemike

I have now removed the words "brilliant" and "astonishing from the page as not to make it sound like a fansite page. I have also added 3 references to the page. One is the OZ Football website page, the Red Devils website and the Ballarat Courier, the newspaper for Ballarat (circ. 25,000 per day).

I hope and believe that this should be enough to have a proper page now on Wikipedia.

Thanks

DuncanRduncansmith (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion, although it should be speedy I'm not sure how to do that. If there's anything else I can do to make this process work more smoothly, please let me know. Thanks for your help and attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FG Fox (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mike! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I've correctly nominated the article. If you could shed some light on how to make it speedy if at all possible, or how to get it deleted if no one cares enough to vote, that would be great. Thanks for your time and help! FG Fox (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm looking for advice on a situation I haven't encountered before.

The other night I was trolling the user creation log for potentially abusive accounts/edits and ran across Steelcitydesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was expecting spam to follow, but instead what we have here are a couple of lovebirds seperated by many miles who are using the user talk page as a chat page because one of them is traveling and can't access e-mail or Facebook. I dropped a welcome message in, which was deleted and ignored. Today I prodded them as politely as I could (with a link to WP:NOT) to take their conversation elsewhere, and their response was basically "Oh, come on, we're not hurting anything".

We have a username that could be contrued as a role account (I found businesses by that name in Pittsburgh and Sheffield), being used by both parties in the conversation (definitely a no-no). Nothing abusive has been done in mainspace. I don't want to be BITE-y, but these people clearly have no intention to contribute to the encyclopedia. What do you think--further warnings, blocking, ignore them? Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 19:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you think of MJ, but i wouldnt be surprised if it's the same as I think of MJ; none the less this foundation has enough press to be notable. In fact, I marked it as unquestionably notable' before I saw that it was you who had questioned it. DGG (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I'll assume good faith that this was nothing to do with any personal feelings you have on Jackson. However, if you had done even the slightest bit of research, you would have realized that through the Dangerous World Tour alone (since every penny went into the foundation), the foundation raised $100,000,000. While the American press don't discuss the positive aspects of Mr Jackson, international press does. — Realist² 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mike, any chance you could semi-protect the Sensory Sweep Studios article? That would at least force the IPs to come to the talk page, rather than deleting everything with no explanation. I've reinstated the paragraph, but I'm sure another one will come along and I don't want to edit war over it. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the Ed Ludbrook article (Deleted July 18, 2008 and July 21, 2008) and compare it to the Edward Ludbrook article (Created August 3, 2008) to see if they are the same. And also compare it to User:EdLudbrook (Which is the same as Edward Ludbrook) for the heck of it. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as you (and I ) were trying to fix it, another admin got impatient and deleted the whole thing. I've restored it (& notified him) and started editing. It did not meet the speedy delete condition given, so i restored it. Now i suppose we've got to take care of it. i suspect many of the sections may in fact be copyvios from various places, as usual with such articles, and I'll stubbify those parts as i find them. I've already removed some fluff. We can talk further about it on its talk p. DGG (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why have you deleted this page - this is a league within the English rugby union league structure and you deleted it saying it is not relevent. Tell that to the 14 teams which play in it every weekend.

If you search for its relevence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Durham/N%27thm%27land_1) you will see a good 50 or so reference to it. Please reinstate it

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.60.133 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC) 

Hi Mike,

A quick look at this page shows that you are drunk with power. You dude, are a deletion machine! I wonder why you have such a hard time with ideas?

I was under the impression that Wikipedia is all about ideas. But apparently you don’t agree. You could have deleted the link to the International Capitalist Parties article about the Numa but you chose to eliminate all reference to the idea of the Numa. I don’t believe for a second that you actually believed that the page was blatant advertising. I believe that you don’t like the idea and therefore feel it your duty to eliminate the idea… to protect the little people from a corrupting idea.

What you don’t realize is that you censors can try to stop human progress and stifle ideas that you find offensive all you want. But the river of human affairs will wash you and your small minded ilk from the earth.

I feel sorry for you. To be so small minded. Do you get a lot of headaches?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.206.18 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 January 2009

Hey there, I noticed you blocked 71.219.57.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely for a 3RR violation. Was this a mistake? I also notice you have several other indef IP blocks on Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely-blocked IPs. Per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. From my understanding consensus is that this means only for something extreme like a WP:OFFICE or OTRS action. Even death threats and legal threats from IPs deserve no more than a year or so from my understanding. Do you have a problem with unblocking (and in some cases, reblocking for a set period of time) the IPs in question? Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mike. Could I ask you to stop by the Lee Hasdell article and help out dealing with COI-affected ClaudioProductions edits when and if you have the time? Thanks. --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Update: I'm nearing 3RR and tired of the BS so I'll leave the page for today. The current issue is his complete rewrite of the lead to one that's IMO both non-NPOV and unreliably sourced (the one that was, was completely sourced). Hopefully you can take a look at it. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that I don't own the articles. But since I am the only author, I figured that I could get them deleted to start again. Anyhow, I'll try your suggestion of just using the existing pages. But I have a bad feeling that this won't work. We'll see. Mongolia62 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC) (hope I'm doing this tilde thing correctly)

(talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) 

Hello Mike.

I got your message about the inappropriateness of redirecting a talk page (would have responded there, but somehow I lost the page, so I'm responding here).

I guess my only defense is a pure heart but an empty head. :>) Didn't know that I was doing anything inappropriate. I value Wikipedia, for which reason I've contributed (along with a financial donation) four rather serious pieces based on research using a variety of languages. But I must say that for me, at least, the rules and instructions written by Wikipedians (?) are so complex and so jargon-laden that it's hard for an old dog like me to follow this stuff. This is not a criticism, just an observation.

Which brings me to the fact that I really have no clue what I did incorrectly or how to fix it. I'm happy to do so, but directions in non-technical language would be very helpful. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongolia62 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is like day 4 of this and its ANNOYING... One guy tells me to fix something then I fix then the next, its like being a club of no-it-alls.... if you don't know it it doesn't exist. How can I fix it today man. Goodbeat (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just seeing why was the page 'Echuca Football Club' page deleted when other football clubs in the same football competition (GVFL) have pages of their own, eg; Mansfield Football Club, Seymour Football Club and Rochester Football Club —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shire17 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean my signature??? I'm just figuring out how to use the links and I just figured out the wiki links problem. I'm at a point where I'm not understanding whats wrong and being redirected to links isn't helping. The information of the other DJs is pending dude to a request of our manager to for approval. I'm still not understanding what you're talking about so unless you got some help detail "how to fix" run throughs that aren't robotic I don't know what to do and might have to seek another information hub that is user friendly. Goodbeat (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please help me to understand why you have deleted my page. It was quite a bit of work to pull all of the necessary links together. I was the writer of the 'Eicon' page some years ago, so my intention was really to update the information, since Eicon is now Dialogic, and really a lot of changes needed to be recorded. I tried to build the Dialogic page on the same format as the 'Eicon' page, but for some reason you have taken exception to that. I read the section about 'asserting notability', but really I'm none the wiser; it is a fact that it's a well-known international company with a large number of customers, and it is in that sense notable. I could list other company pages I've visited on Wikipedia that are about much less notable companies and yet their pages can still remain up.

It would help me if you could guide me what to do to make the Dialogic entry acceptable in your eyes, rather than just summarily destroying it.

UPDATE: Sorry. I found it now. That must be someone else's dialogic page you deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MartynDavies (talk • contribs) 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 

A penny for your thoughts on David Lenz. I put the COI tag on the article after the subject added an image. Before that, an SPA did all of the edits. It could be a vanity article. User:David Lenz complained about the COI tag on my talk page. I'd like a fresh set of eyes to look at the article. Please check out the article's talk page. Royalbroil 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Orange Mike for your help. Obviously I am a new contributor to WP and I'm still learning the ropes. Maybe for my next project I'll start an article about the Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition. In the world of portraiture, this competition is a very big deal and should have an article on WP.Nuts4art (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike! Royalbroil 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

http://tommy2.net/content/?p=2252 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.9.242 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!

Thank you for the quick reply, but unfortunately you just copy/pasted the paragraph from rules, which doesn't answer my question (or perhaps it does, but I just didn't get it). I refer to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeroCraft While writing the article I had some other moderators looking into it and pointing out which phrases violate the neutral position rule and should be removed and which statements require references... But the current issue is slightly different: I want to post the logo screenshots for our recent products which isn't actually a promotion or breaking of neutrality, but the answer from moderators was that usage of these pictures may violate copyright. So I just wanted to ask how can I verify the right to use these pictures (they're openly available on HeroCraft company's website http://www.herocraft.com). Thank you in advance for your answer and for your time and please excuse me if I'm asking stupid questions.

Haseth (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike! Your deletion was too soon. I was still fixing it when you began deleting what I was doing sacrificially for hours in the middle of the night. I only slept for a while, and wheww, my article is gone. I guess you don't realize the time difference between your country and mine. By {hangon} I mean hang on for at least twelve hours.FadulJoseArabe (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not the Mike you're looking for, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway :P. I would suggest fully making articles in your userspace first, for instance I make my articles in User:Darth Mike/Sandbox. You could use User:FadulJoseArabe/Sandbox or User:FadulJoseArabe/Fr. Thomas Janetius etc. This ensures that your article is fully done before you even create it. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The deleted article was so shamelessly promotional that you are much better off starting over from scratch. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining your deletion of User:Secret to me? Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Orangemike. Though I'm not excited that you deleted a link to my site :), it was neat to get a look at your page (which quite frankly, I would have never seen otherwise). Anyway, I'd like to plead my case. The link you deleted - to e-lab-book.com - is simply a site where I talk about ELNs (try to compile the latest news and knowledge on ELNs), also a forum is attached. I make no money, in fact I lose money. It's a hobby. I am a neuroscience researcher, the guys who keep editing the link out, are from Recentris or other ELN companies. They SAY my site is an ad, and belittle its webdesign (hey I'm a researcher not an artist), but the fact is they don't like it because besides discussing all the pay-ELNs, I talk about how you can use the computers and software you have as an makeshift ELN. Anyway, I really feel I am within wikipedia guidlines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.86.85 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Mangotours apparently missed the point of the COI, autobiography, and block notices that were issued to him, and is in the process of trying to evade the block by posting SPAM links to his company on his user talk page. As a suggestion, perhaps page protection would be appropriate? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It never went into RfA mainspace, so technically a RfA never occurred. The editor also specifically told me that he wanted it deleted. Just a heads up, because you reverted the tag I put on there. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This page was not "advertising" anymore than any article which discusses any book or movie etc. This article discusses the diet, it's pros/cons etc. Also there was no warning, discussion, etc. prior to the deletion. Why is The Tipping Point not "advertising"? Why is The Dark Knight not "advertising"? Why is Invasion of the Bee Girls not "advertising"? Why is Freakonomics not "advertising"? Why is The New York Times not "advertising"? etc. etc. etc. Alight (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. But if you can restore the text, I'll make edits to make it seem less like an ad.

The The New York Times article states "[it] is regarded as a national newspaper of record. Founded in 1851, the newspaper has won 98 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper." Sure sounds like an "ad" for the NYT to me. I think this particular article was held to a higher standard, but so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alight (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

You deleted the article Monsooned Malabar this morning. Intriguingly, for a four year old article, with over a dozen editors, you did so after it was tagged with a suggested speedy-deletion criterion that is clearly inappropriate. A moment's checking of the article's history would confirm this; such checking was clearly not undertaken by you. It saddens me that you would fail to take the appropriate care, and fail in your duty as a sysop. I would ask that you reverse your action and restore the article. I will also be leaving a note on the page of the CSD tagger, who has similarly erred.

James F. (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That was one of the most shameless examples of blatant spam I've seen in a long time. The pre-spamming version was unsourced and full of advertising-like language; there was nothing to salvage. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify my comment I made on User talk:76.66.196.229. Essentialy what I meant as science fiction themes is that there wasn't any time travel, parallel dimensions, etc., often seen in other works of alternate history. I was assuming that the annon is one of those alternate history fans who support the contention that alternate history is its own genre. I used the Timeline 191 stories as an example to show that even when such themes are not present it still is science fiction.

You have to admit though that despite Turtledove's POV that those novels and others like them have just as much in common with historical fiction as they do with science fiction. I believe Turtledove commented that once that he thought the reason that alternate history has gained an upswing in popularity recently was because of the number of science fiction authors in the 80s who had backgrounds in history. Turtledove, Eric Flint and S. M. Stirling are just a couple of examples who either had degrees in history or else had a strong interest in it. Though interesting to speculate about, I personally have not seen any works covering such a theory. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I saw you speedy-deleted Fit for Life. Badagnani (talk · contribs) disagreed and dealt with the issue by cut-and-pasting a version of the article back onto Wikipedia. I went ahead and fixed the ensuing GFDL issues, but I think it's probably best to send it to AfD at this point. Hence: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit for Life, if you're interested. MastCell ^Talk 06:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was browsing the recent history of WP:UAA and noticed you blocked User:Zentralbibliothek Zürich though it's noted the user is "active on German Wikipedia, contributing to some rather decent articles". I don't read German, but the user is active there and has never been blocked.

I know the German and English Wikipedias have some differing policies, but it seems to me that the username policy between the two projects wouldn't differ that much in this instance. Toliar (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of that. Toliar (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi - just to let you know I disagreed with and removed the prod. I agree the tone of the article is inappropriate and it needs a fair bit of work, but at least three of the references appear to me to satisfy notability criteria. I'm interested to know why you thought otherwise - I don't really have a horse in this race, but those citations looked good enough to me. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And yes, the blog one's not up to much, but the other three at least come from outlets with editorial procedures. So, hm. I can give it a copy edit for tone, or if you want optimal numbers of pairs of eyes I guess I can go and vote keep at an AfD :) Gonzonoir (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've had a crack at that. What do you think? I'll wait to hear from you before removing maintenance tags. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you help? User:Soundout is spamming hundreds of articles with his web site address http://www.audioville.co.uk/store/product/view_productcategory.php?Id=59 see contributions here [12] 18:33, 6 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teapotgeorge (talk • contribs)

I disagree that this article sounded like an advertisement. If an article does not did not meet WP:N, it isn't necessarily spam. hmwithτ 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

re: your note at User talk:TheCharmingMan - I was wondering the same thing and am also wondering if this is a vandal or at least a fan of Sfcrowsnest. From the edit history it looks like he inserted multiple plugs for Sfcrowsnest, removed the Notability hat from that article, and then hatted several other SF-zines with {{Notability|date=January 2009}} (not clear why the date was not changed to Feb. but maybe that's reliable and citable evidence of time warps. <g>) --Marc Kupper|talk 23:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This has got to be the longest user-warning-link-thingy I've seen. Good one, tho. ;) —Travis^talk 04:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

iTALC was not advertisement. I was posting it because my teacher mentioned it to me today, and I noticed it wasn't an article on Wikipedia. I love how these days you can't add anything to Wikipedia without it getting removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachera (talk • contribs) 06:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mike. You deleted article about flaphone. Please explain where in this acticle was ads? Flaphone is unique service that in one and only in the world and I think WP users intresteed in it and VoIP. When I write my article I look thought same services and I don't see the didderent bettween article about flaphone and others. These acticle are not ads but my ads. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey Poroshin (talk • contribs) 07:05, 7 February 2009

You blocked User:Stewie-Th3 King earlier, I just wanted to make sure you had your eye on another account he used, User:3DG-Th3 King. In addition, User:M3th3champ claims to be a friend of theirs, so potential sock and meat puppetry looks pretty bad. I nominated User talk:Stewie-Th3 King for a deletion again after User:3DG-Th3 King recreated it. I didn't report them as socks because from what I see he wasn't blocked while on that account, although I could have read something wrong. Hope that helps! Templarion 愛 10:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the deletion of File:WhiteHeart1970.png. It says F1 and I only ever uploaded this one. Two issues - one is that somebody simply re-upped the exact same image yesterday, cut and pasted the exact same image page, including license, FUR and description supplied by my original upload - they are exactly the same. The only difference is the format which does not meet F1 deletion requirement. So it was not really an F1 because it is not in the same format, secondly I have no idea why the user did this anyway. Could you please restore the original you deleted? Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(NOTE: This is just so you get the exact same msg in case someone asks, not to be redundant.) This image does not meet F1. It was/is not an unused image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution,. The was a mis-tag. Please restore. (CC: CSDWarnBot) Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that this user's repeated linkspamming called for a long block--but given his previous contrib history, isn't indef a bit too harsh here? I think the block should be cut down to a month--with the proviso that if he slips up again, it'll be indef. What do you think? Blueboy96 15:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Orange,

Can you plz let me know which portion of the article on Zumbeel made you call it a blatant advertising?

Just to add a note, I am not a member of the team that owns Zumbeel, so I dont find anything that might benefit me in advertising it on wikipedia?

But still, I am willing to edit those portions of the article which you think are advertisements.

Thanks & Regards,

MisbahUddin Abdullah RNO Consultant LCC +92 343 20 45 115 --Misbahabdullah (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the page for Brainify. To people who are not members of the educational technology community, this may seem like a page which simply describes a website. It is not. This is a site of significance because: 1) its creator is a pioneer in educational technologies. He is a UBC faculty member who produced WebCT - the first widely adopted course management system for higher education. It is used in 80 countries and was the primary driver in on-line learning in higher education 2) this site (Brainify) is the first ACADEMIC social bookmarking and networking site for students. That alone makes it significant.

In my opinion, the article was not biased in any way - though I am happy to argue that point if you feel otherwise. However, as to its significance, as an educational technologist, I can assure you of its significance to the university and college community.

I respectfully ask that you either reinstate this article, or *at the very least* ask the opinions of a few experts in this field as to the significance of this article.

I appreciate very much the need to keep Wikipedia on track, but question the rapid deletion of articles of significance by administrators who may not be subject-matter experts.

Edtechguy46 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(I made the following argument in my talk page, but place it here so people can follow the thread. Sorry - not sure what the convention is for this) Understood Mike - however, the site itself IS still noteworthy to the educational technology community. As evidence of that, the moment it was launched it was covered by the "Chronicle of Higher Education". The Chronicle is the "New York Times" of the higher education world. It is highly unusual for a new website to be covered, but it *was* covered due to the significance of the site. The article is here Artcile. The creator may not be sufficient criteria for notability - but should lend evidence to its notability. The article in the chronicle is direct evidence. Edtechguy46 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike - regarding Brainify: I received the following suggestion from Wuhwazdat on my talk page. It reads as follows:

-

Perhaps Orange Mike can bring it back from dead article purgatory, but if he does so, I would recommend having the article placed in your user space, editing it there, and BEFORE you put the article back in mainspace, ask a few editors to give it some constructive criticism. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

-

This seems reasonable to me. If it does to you, I would respectfully ask that you place the page in my userspace, and then before I go live with it again, I will connect with you to ask if the significance has been articulated sufficiently.

Please let me know if that is acceptable to you.

Thanks. Edtechguy46 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike - Still have not heard back - per my question above - will you place the page in my userspace, and then before I go live with it again, I will connect with you to ask if the significance has been articulated sufficiently?

Edtechguy46 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mike,

I have knowledge of the above so have added to his bio article (my first for Wikipedia). There now seem to be two versions of this article which I do not understand. Can you help please?

Thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is this other version of which you speak? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is one - for some reason the search engine was giving two hits, both to the same version of the article, maybe some kind of server lag? – ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mike,

1. Last night and this morning two versions of the privateering article came up when the single word ORDRONAUX was entered into the Wikipedia search engine. However, when I tried just now only one appeared so it may have corrected itself. 2.Before I began improving this article there were no primary source references given at all. I have now added source references (not footnotes) to support the whole text, as well doubling its length. I am a published author of history book and know the importance of being able to support every statement. The information that you asked me to read about citing references looks like an encyclopaedia in itself and I do not think it is appropriate to expect someone to absord this without help. And I certainly do not think criticism is due. I have rated the article a STUB myslef as you will have seen. I haven't finished yet and I am being helped in Wikipaedia style by ukexpat.

Regards Wfm495 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I have fixed the footnotes/formatting using named refs and removed the tag that you added. – ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike, Ukexpat has done a really great job of linking up my source refs in wiki style thank you both. Please let me know what is the next stage? Wfm495 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears you speedied Gregory Richardson in September 2008. Was this for Gregory Richardson, the football player who plays for Joe Public F.C.? If so, then he meets WP:ATHLETE by playing in the fully professional TT Pro League (though I'd have thought scoring a hat-trick while eliminating the then league-leading New England Revolution from this years Champions League would have created enough media coverage, that he would be notable for that alone!).

If this is the same person, can you restore the article? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is this guy sometimes nicknamed "Jackie Chan"? The version I deleted was so spammy that I'm reluctant to restore it other than to a sandbox. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• • That's him - [13]. Can you restore and I'll tidy up within 24-hours (not going to have a chance until this evening ...) Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks - wow, that page needs a lot of work! It's going to take more than 24-hours ... but I guess it's safe in my userspace ... Nfitz (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...thanks for letting me know! Doggone it, did I ever get suckered. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I had already fixed the rest of that random vandalism, they did not make any edits after the first warning. I think they had moved on anyway, so no real loss unless constructive edits start showing up. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at the Elm Grove, Wisconsin article? Someone added a section about Government Conflict.It has citations but is is appropriate? I let Royalbroil know of my concerns.Hope everyone is well.Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-RFD (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. It is very helpful. I am new to this, and welcome guidance. Sri.dhyana (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. I will post the proposed "newer version" on the talk page right away with links to the information, and would love to see this help to update the information on the page right away. Thanks again. Sri.dhyana (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you've deleted the I-Power page. I'm not exactly sure what I can change about the sources to make this more credible to you. If you could please give me some basic tips on what I could do to make it fit within the guidelines because I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Xhail2 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not every subject is notable; not every website will have an article here. I've given you every lead I can think of to explain why this article doensn't qualify. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is a living person's biography blatant advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgalfas (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that even if the article is rewritten in a neutral tone about the man that you're going to delete it anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgalfas (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Was wondering how I may improve this article as I don't see how this is blatant advertising. This article seems to be on par with articles such as IBM, Proxicom, Ascentium, and Accenture. I also would like for my user page to be restored as I apologize for messing up the editing with this article. This is a new try at it so would like another chance as I navigate through this complicated process.

Margpeng (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike,

You deleted a post I recently put up for "TechAmerica," as per it was just advertising, but the intent of my post was to be the new home for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Electronics_Association

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Technology_Association_of_America

The organizations recently merged and I would like to start building out the new association's content. Please let me know how I should move forward.

I went ahead and posted a new section in each of the former profiles about the merger being finalized.

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.langsner (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Did not mean to vandalize Webby Awards page. Did not realize this was overwritten and would never do this intentionally. Sorry about that. Will look at instructions as to how to roll back screw ups like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margpeng (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A few months ago, I published an entry for Yoozur. The page was speedy deleted because the site was still in Beta testing and had not gone live, therefor the landing page read "Future Home of Yoozur.com".

The site is currently up and running (http://yoozur.com) and I would like to ask that I be able to go in and recreate my entry. This is a social networking site, not unlike Facebook or MySpace, and I would ask that it receive the same respect and opportunities that these sites do within the Wikipedia community.

Thank you.

Littlejacksmb (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If I edit it in my sandbox, could I run it by you again before trying to post to make sure it's ok? Margpeng (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has made an unblock request. Seems legit and the "self-promotion" she was engaged in before the block seems relatively tame. I'd appreciate it if you hopped over there at your convenience and took a look at the block (alternately you can hit me up on my talk page, as I probably won't watchlist this one). Protonk (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to review jellybeaneater: APAMSA post? It's the one that you had deleted. Thanks! Jellybeaneater (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes OK. How do I do that? Listshits (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get it I think. I certainly didn't mean to vandalize - only trying to tidy things up a bit. Right now I'm trying to figure out how to add pictures so that I put one on my user page. I think I remember seeing reference to it on an FAQ page recently, but perhaps you could point me in the right direction more quickly?Sri.dhyana (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. Sri.dhyana (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but would you please take a look at the changes made to NASA Astrobiology Institute? As you can see, I went in and added all sorts of links and whatnot - maybe too much. One of my co-workers made a major edit yesterday which was what I was trying to avoid due to our conversations yesterday (with you and others), so I went in and touched it up. I also sent her links to our recent conversations so that she will be caught up to speed with policies and the rest of the information. She started asking about having it semi restricted as well, so hopefully the passed on information will help her as much as it helped me. Really, thanks for all your help. Sri.dhyana (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm hoping to chime in here - forgive me for not being savvy to how wikipedia works. my name is daniella scalice and i work at the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI). i posted the new description of NAI yesterday. everything i posted is public information that NAI provides on its website. our intention was to provide factual information about the organization to wikipedia users. the information already up there wasn't totally complete, and we felt we were doing wikipedia users a service by providing the correct, complete info.

i'm concerned that some of the things wikipedia has posted about the article - for example:

i don't believe anything we posted was in conflict with the interest or spirit of how wikipedia works, in terms of being a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. i've noticed that other pages with authoritative information on a particular subject are "semi-protected" and our intention was to explore that for the NAI posting. perhaps we should have worked that out with wikipedia first - i apologize for the lapse in protocol... again, our intention was to provide wikipedia users with the most accurate information about what NAI is. NAI is a part of NASA, a public, non-profit, government organization, so we are definitely not in competition with anyone...so i don't see how we're promoting our own interests.

also, the comments about tone and sounding like an advertisement- i'm confused about that...can you clarify please? NAI doesn't have anything to advertise. i didn't see any suggestions on the talk page...??

can you please help me understand why the neutrality of the article is being disputed? we are completely neutral - as i said, a government, public-service organization - we are just trying to provide accurate information... i can see where this would come into play about articles that have to do with definitions of things that rely on opinions, but that's not the case here.

finally, when i made the change yesterday, i did include a citation...

PLEASE - any help you can provide is greatly appreciated - we're not trying to perpetrate anything on the wikipedia users! perhaps things like NAI shouldn't even be on wikipedia???

Dscalice (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Daniella Scalice

Oh, they have a place here; but the very fact that you think you crafted a neutral piece is illustrative of the problem. Working for the NAI as you do, naturally you see it in the best light. Imagine, if you will, an article about Microsoft written by Bill Gates; even if you trusted Gates, you could imagine that it would be somewhat easier on Vista problems than an article written by an end user, a Mac programmer or a Linux guru! The language reads like a press release, full of glittering generalities like, "As NAI enters its second decade, its scientists continue to explore the limits of life on Earth, develop new ways to search for life elsewhere in the Universe, and advance our understanding of how life itself originated on our own planet." That's not encyclopedic content; that's fluffy-bunny candyfloss for the Appropriations Committee hearing. And as a government worker, I snort in scorn at the assertion that "i don't see how we're promoting our own interests"!!!! Proxmire is gone, but NASA-haters abound; naturally you have a distinct interest in painting all NASA projects in a good light. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations to the subject's own website are not considered reliable sources for most assertions. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

i definitely see your point - what's an organization like us to do? how should we proceed? would it be more productive to change the text to a short description which essentially just links to the NAI webpage? Dscalice (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)daniella scalice

Thanks for adding the Delany image to the Gaylactic Spectrum Awards - i hadn't though of using free images of people. I added another and made the navbox smaller so it all fits. If you had time in the next week to comment at it's featured list candidate page, that would be great. It is at least as good as other waward FLs, but I think most reviewers see SF and LGBT in the first sentence and click away - too niche even for wikigeeks :-). I think i'll do the Tiptree next.Yobmod (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Orangemike. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind semi-protecting the Puberty article. All it mostly receives in editing these days is vandalism and really needs protection (at all times, really). Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for granting this request. Flyer22 (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you recently deleted the page for the Abs Diet. I agree of course that there should be no dispute over whether advertisement should be allowed on the site as per guidelines, but was outright deletion necessary? Plenty of other books and dietary plans have informative wiki pages, and I believe they are relevant, so why delete the whole entry and not just edit out the qualitative language that made that entry sound like advertisement? There was probably good work on the page that got wiped out along with the bad. -D (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough sir. I didn't get a chance to read it anyway, so I'll take your word on that, but considering its popularity and the source book's sales status, it certainly is notable and deserving of a GOOD page. If I had more time and energy I'd start a new one myself, we shall see. Cheers. ---D--- (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey I saw that KEMP Technologies was deleted for "blatant advertising". Can you please inform me about what part of the article is considered advertising? The page was written in an Encyclopedia format and did not display any sort of advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.21.162 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mike. I have re-worked the Brainify page in terms of trying to more clearly demonstrate significance. Could I trouble you to take a look at it and let me know if you think I've been sufficiently successful?

Thanks. Edtechguy46 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I liked your earlier comments regarding the Atkisson letter. There are several options currently being proposed on the talk page, and some heated discussion (including a so-far-minor edit war). I wonder if you might have anything further to offer.

Thanks! Mark Shaw (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, hope you're doing well today. I don't remember the link path that caused me to bookmark your page, but I noticed you lean toward removing fluff (but judge each article on it's own merits). To be as brief as I can (often a difficult task) - I am interested in creating an article about a now defunct race track. Heidelberg Raceway (was near Pittsburgh, PA). Most of the Internet stuff is fan pages and the like, but a couple mentions at things like NASCAR.com can be found. The reason I thought (and hope) it may be notable is that Lee Petty (Founder of Petty Enterprises) won his first NASCAR race at the track, and the highest finish ever by a (NASCAR) woman driver was at the track (5th). The track ran from 1949 - 1973, and Pittsburgh newspapers are only indexed back to 1987 at a local library. They do have micro-film, but before I put that much effort into the article, I wanted to get your opinion on whether it would survive or not. (I think there are a few redlinks here for the track too). Thanks for your time — Ched (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you by the way - the inherited part wasn't something I had considered. — Ched (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike,

Cheers, Will from England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfm495 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 16 February 2009

User_talk:Bics#AfD_nomination_of_Basis_Instrument_Contract

It seems reasonable enough to me. If he's really come around there shouldn't be a problem with the username. If you don't have a problem with unblocking let me know on my talk page or just unblock him. :) If you do, let me know and I'll figure out what to do then. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Right. I'm not judging the propriety of the original unblock. I mean if he says "I won't edit about BICs" and we believe him, can you be ok with unblocking him? Protonk (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  

Just to say that this article has been transformed by help from ukexpat, who is very skilled, and good and pleasant to work with Wfm495 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Orangemike,

It says on the Siena College page to help the article by providing unbiased information on the page. What is on the page already is definitely unbiased, but it really tells hardly anything about the college. Siena College is no small college, it is a very prominent name in Upstate New York. The men's basketball team has a very large fanbase and they even made it to the NCAA tournament last year.

For this school to be so well known, its wikipedia article makes it seems like its nothing. The other schools in the area and in the MAAC conference all have full articles displaying everything to do with their institutions. Siena College only has a small paragraph saying the bare minimum. Before I realized I was not signed into my account, I spent a good amount of time putting on the information I did and I feel that the only part of the article that had any sort of advertisement to it, if it can even be called that, is the location article. Location is a good marketing tool for schools. The rest that was put on is general information of the school. Nothing was written that made any part of the school better than any other. It all was general information.

It's a real shame to see everything deleted like that because the website is hectic to navigate if you're new to it, and even still then it is difficult to find anything. People in the past may have spammed the article. What I put on there was not spam. I spent a lot of time making sure that everything is backed up by the Siena College website, which I hope everyone in the future has an easier time finding the information than I did. It is also not fair that some many colleges near or somehow associated with Siena College are allowed to put on what they want to showcase their institutions, but Siena College is left with one of the smallest wikipedia articles I have ever seen.

In a way, by not allowing information like this on the Siena College article, there is a bias in the article. Any student who is wiki-ing colleges will see Siena College and think nothing of it, but if it sees, say for example, Fairfield, they will get much of what they want to know just by reading the article. This is just the opposite of boasting about a school. It can hinder Siena College, which is as equally as bad as making it look better than it is.

No matter what your decision is, I'll respect the decision.

Sincerely, Sabres7414

Sabres7414 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I understand completely. Since, I read your reply, I've tried to find sources that are not from siena.edu. I'm willing to redo what I wrote. So far, it has been difficult to find information on facilities around the campus and about location. I have been able to find majors and google maps (Would this count as a proof) can prove how close Siena is to I-87, I-90, Albany,NY, and Troy, NY. However, I'll keep on trying to find more sources. Also, one thing I've noticed are outdated information on some sites.

Also, I'm new to editing wikipedia, so sorry for any mistakes while posting on these talk pages and just posting in general.

Thanks, Sabres7414 Sabres7414 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You prodded Jill Davis for lack of references. Does the reference to a web page at harpers Collins (publisher) I added satisfy your concerns? RJFJR (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like depending on web pages as references, but it's what I've got. Harper Collins is a major publisher, but I don't know if they vet their web site entries as well as their printed books. Let me see if I find anything else. RJFJR (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you're apparently attempting to out this user? diff. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ajws (talk · contribs) create a page called American jewish world service, which I then tagged for notability, conflict of interest, etc. The user then wrote to me privately seeking advice on what to do. He didn't realize his actions constituted a conflict of interest and would rather have the article deleted rather than appear in a negative light. I advised him to blank the page, but when he tried to do so, another editor incorrectly labeled this blanking as vandalism (rather than as a G7 deletion request). By the time the original author got back to try again, yet a third editor had moved the page, so that it could not effectively still be called the original author's, so he was no longer in a position to undo his mistake. If you follow the chain of discussion on my talk page you can see that the author was trying to do the right thing. Is there any way this author's wishes can be taken into consideration since, other than the page move, he is still the only author of any substantive content on the page? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you moved Sir Henry Phillips to Henry Phillips (colonial administrator), a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Use of prefix "Sir" as a disambiguation aid may be of interest.—Roman Spinner (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the article! I have been trying for weeks to improve it, but have only met with resistence. I'm delighted you were able to add relevant info without the drama. I'd appreciate if you'd also take a look at what I've attached below. Perhaps it's long and could be edited, but I think it deserves to be included in some form. I'd appreciate your feedback, and if you find a version of it is reasonable, if you would include it. Please watch the video to get the notability. It's a relevant rebuttal to a specific claim made in Goldberg's recent book. It's at the end of the video.

"Goldberg’s book, A Slobbering Love Affair and Goldberg directly were both criticized on the January 27th, 2009 episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Keith Olbermann accused Goldberg of doctoring a quote by Tom Brokaw with respect to Barack Obama's personal heroes. Given that the topic of the book is Goldberg's claims regarding media bias, Olbermann accused Goldberg of "journalistic malpractice", and awarded him that day’s title as "Worst Person in the World." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28882720 Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 27, 2009."

This is also relevant to the killing you were working on in the article. Again, watch and decide. Again, also it's at the end. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29170852

Thanks! 68.183.246.93 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Got your message. I wondered if you checkout out both videos, or just the first one? Thanks again. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I get that. I just found it relevant because it was on MSNBC responding to a charge made in the book about MSNBC. It just seemed like it deserved some mention, even if not undue emphasis. The article mentions other criticisms of the book. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I asked for you opinion and you were good enough to give it. Thanks for at least looking it over. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I really wasn't pushing for both in the article. I'd have been happy with either. Particularly the first, even in some small form, because it's a direct rebuttal of a Goldberg charge against MSNBC. But, I'll defer. I just wanted a fair hearing and a reasonable discussion. I wasn't getting either on the Goldberg page. Thanks again! 68.183.246.93 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The agenda police have already returned to the article and excised your edits. Please take a look. Thanks. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look in, and advise. Thanks. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I had just put a redirect for this link, why was this deleted? and in what way is it copyright infringement? Nadesai (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Id love to help you now but Im busy, I can help you tomorrow or later today. Ill get back to you soon --Zaharous (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have began here thanks for bringing that to my attention, If you would like to review what I have to write feel free to edit what I have written. If you would like to help me so feel free to also. --Zaharous (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind just take a look at the article now --Zaharous (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do what you bloody want to do with it, when you asked for help, it was no problem. Just know I spent a few hours researching this organization. I do not think my sentences are incoherent. If you think it is so bad you might want put some time in to it. Nothing good comes into play without time and effort.--Zaharous (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You speedied this a week ago as promotional. It was tagged as copyvio today, and it was indeed a copyvio, so I deleted it per G12. It seems safe to say it was still promotional, but I think I'd have to learn a lot to figure out where to draw that line at the speedy stage. When an article is both promotional and a copyvio, do you have any preference whether it's tagged one way or the other or both? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One more question: I always check to make sure the entire article and not just part is a copyvio before I hit the delete button. Does Corenbot, or do any of the other copyvio-reporting bots, report whether they're detecting copyvio in part of the article or the whole article? It would be nice not to have to manually eyeball this every time, and you'd think it wouldn't be hard for the bots to figure out. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot tries to give an estimate, and will tag with either {{csb-pageincludes}} if the wiki page appears to contain most of the web page, or {{csb-pageincluded}} if it appears the wiki page appears to be only contents from the web page (in other words, the latter means that the whole wiki page appears to be copied, whereas the former means that the entire web page appears to be included in the wiki page (which might then have other contents besides the copy)).

It's a little fuzzy around the edges because of the specific method used by CSBot for matches: it uses a protein genome matching function that calculates "amount of work to change x into y" by estimating changes of words, swapping around fragments, and deletions/insertions. The nest result is that it can tell how similar two things are, but isn't very good at telling which parts are original. — Coren ^(talk) 02:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Coren! I went back and found examples of each, that was helpful. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

God day sir, since you have deleted some of Southwestern University Philippines's sub colleges, I would like you to give me permission to re edit this pages and continue the work of the blocked user account Swuccs. I humbly appologize for the mistakes I have done recently and it will not happen again. Hoping for your kind consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babynaamaw (talk • contribs) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the message, I'll watchlist it. Looking at the article again I am tempted to send to Afd (or even nom it for G11 speedy), it is inadequately referenced and bordering on the spammy. Decisions, decisions... – ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good call, PRODing it is. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I do believe a block is in order. Have you already blocked the account? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good question and thanks for putting your trust in me for an answer. I do like to AGF whenever possible and this person seems to be above board on who he was. I'd say to keep an eye on him and if he does any more copvios, that's the time to lower the boom. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Orangemike,

With all due respect, there was nothing wrong with the crooker page. Not many people know about crookers and that was the main reason for putting them on wikipedia. The crooker website has gotten a lot better and is a good link. Information on crookers should be seen by more people!

thanks Free the crookers... (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Thorton wilder

Could you please consider my work? Why is it considered as spamming? I've been working hard for those articles, why my editions have been removed? --Ravescaped (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to clear the UAA backlog! It's hard for me to keep up these days, the help is appreciated. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind checking the edit warring on Lee Hasdell? User:ClaudioProductions (the self-proclaimed article subject's son) insists on edit warring to include sfuk.tripod.com as a source (a free webhosting provider). the subject has been brought up already on the rs board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#sfuk.tripod.com, but he still won't listen. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi how comes you didn't warn this user here? --DFS454 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well explained --DFS454 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you removed OGInfo.com, LLC today for blatant advertising. How is that so? If you search here for Microsoft, Dell, Cisco, or any other company, they are listed. Was the content just incorrect, or worded improperly? Some guidance on here would be great...thanks!

Trav —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trav74 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up my link fix-ups. (As you may have guessed, this was my first attempt to edit Wikipedia. I apologize for not reading more of the documentation first.)

I have propagated your changes into the "1851 in literature" article and a link I had missed in the "Key Nolte Smith" article. I'm fairly confident I got it right, this time.

I have been unable to update one link to the Kay Nolte Smith novel, because it is in the Ayn Rand article (near the end of "Popular interest and influence"). If you can and want to make this update, by all means do. Otherwise, I will try to remember to do it when the article is unprotected. Micro-Parallel (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Railroad engineer? He was British! DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey again Mike. I have re-worked the Brainify page in terms of trying to more clearly demonstrate significance. Could I trouble you to take a look at it and let me know if you think I've been sufficiently successful? Thanks. Edtechguy46 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

At what point do you like to salt a spam or non-notable speedy'd page? When it's uploaded twice in a row? 3 times? I've been making it up as I go along; I have salted for two weeks after two uploads if the name is a page name I think we're never going to have (such as "John Smith, Actor, Father, Humanitarian"), and salted for two weeks after the 3rd deletion in rapid succession no matter what the title is. (Watchlisting, or feel free to respond on my talk page.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be curious to get your input on this article for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Too_Beautiful_to_Live

Notabilitypatrol (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi-there is another article you may want to look at- The Garage (South Ave). It is a punk house and has its own website.I do not know if this is notable or a hoax>Hope everyone is doing well-RFD (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again-RFD (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The following message was posted earlier, but deleted by another user (in error?) before you responded;

Regarding your reversion of my putting that material back,

I have absolutely no intention in getting into any kind of edit war over this. I have zero interest in the subject matter, I'd never heard of the show until I got chatting with Golbez on IRC. I just feel that, rather than removing that material, it could be improved.

Please take a look at my reasoning on the talk page; I certainly won't put the stuff back again; I had planned to spend some of my time, now, trying to improve the language, layout, etc - but there's no point if it can't go in.

Please let me know what you think.

-- Chzz ► 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

--  Chzz  ►  19:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response to this.

--  Chzz  ►  03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your silence has been deafening! Looks like a keep, would you please comment, as requested, re. reversion?

--  Chzz  ►  20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)