Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 16 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present.

Mike, would you be so kind to check out the edits that User_talk:24.159.187.122 has made to Russ Mitchell. It appears that this editor is causing formatting problems with his/her edits. I've reverted his/her edits twice, but do not wish to get into an edit war in case this editor chooses to make this edit a third time. If I am mistaken in may assessment, I would appreciate it if you would tell me this. If you would prefer not to review these edits, please suggest an alternate admin. Please reply on your talk page. Thank you in advance for your assistance, --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, User_talk:24.159.187.122 made the same edit to Russ Mitchell as noted above for the third time. Please, review this person's edit and take appropriate action. Thank you. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there was any way to retrieve content deleted when the Chattanooga Stand and CreateHere entries were removed? Additionally, I was wondering why the pages were deleted? Was it nominated? Many thanks. Veronique.bergeron 15:32, 2 November 2009

Sorry about that. I saw that he had deleted a section someone else had put up where they had stated it would be nice to inform users if he started a mediation that involved them. I put it back and added my own comment about it, but didn't notice that I had accidentally taken away a comment by another user. Again, so sorry about that. Glad you caught it! Anakinjmt (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you or someone has taken down material relating to "The Lost Symbol: Found" - I think this resolves the issue. Thanks for this. I deleted your message from my talk page as it seems to me this is actioned and solved. Graemedavis (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

This goes against my editorial reflexes, but them's the rules.

I prefer to yield to my "editorial reflexes" than to a rule lacking in common sense. I have done this many times, and have yet to have an admin push it. In this case, I fixed a few typos and bad grammar to make the post—which had a good point—more readable. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your inputs Orangemike especially your advice. I did fix the formats of the article's footnotes and added a few more citations. Do you think they're good enough? Jxc5 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, Orange Mike!

EVERY newspaper article, news story, blog...EVERYTHING I have ever read or listened to about the subject mentions the cannibalism part. As for references go, do you think Underwoods words himself to the FBI in his confession video be an adequate enough source for citation?Chris Hawk (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw where User:Covenant Presbyterian Church of Chicago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) placed a malformed unblock request to make a change of username. Since the block was for username only, I'm going to go ahead and unblock this user. I'll also remind them that they'll still have a COI, even if they change names.

If you have any objections to this, please let me know. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page some time ago about a theory of Mullasadra named Substantial motion which was deleted by you. I want to re-create it again because I have enough References to provide a good article about this subject/please tell me what do you think? Bbadree (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean where exactly it says in WP rules that we shouldn't have one article for such matters? Bbadree (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks , by the way anything new revealed about the fort hood shootings in US media?Bbadree (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and you know Unfortunately it will be an awful situation again for muslims and specially for Arabs in U.S. Bbadree (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why this is so questionable to you, but yes, Bacone Style is a widespread Native art style covered by numerous books about Oklahoman American Indian painting. Partioners include the Tiger family, Dick West, Woody Crumbo, Acee Blue Eagle, Fred Beaver, the Rabbit family, etc., etc. Here's another source. Surely it's time to move on to other editing pursuits? -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

So sorry :) You've inspired me - I'll get on it. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Is you reelated tuh Richard Stawlmun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaankenhaarden (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was recently patrolling new pages, and wasn't sure what do to with this. I later found it deleted as an R3. I'm not sure if it was speediable, but I'm sure it wasn't a redirect when I looked at it. Would you double check the history of this one? --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wasn't sure if it was a mistake. --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ug, I'm trying to create an article about a newspaper in Panama, I live in Panama, and the people of Panama, like to read it. wish you guys would get off your buttons for 5 MINUTES!

thanks, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboo.jack (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said the following:

According to the stub I deleted, this is not a newspaper but a website. Websites without any evidence of notability are subject to speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You give me less than five minutes to write about this topic. I know you're an AMERICAN citizen, but if you were in PANAMA, a country in Latin America which has little representation on Wikipedia in English, you would think that The Panama News is an important piece of media!

I've given up, you win, I won't even bother writing the article until I have YOUR permission.

Thanks, have a good night.

Roboo.jack (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

There is clearly a misunderstanding here. You must write the article first; then you put it on Wikipedia. I don't pretend to be an expert on Panama (although I have union brothers in the Zone). If you really believe this website is notable, then create a draft article in a sandbox (I'll even create one for you, at User:Roboo.jack/Panama News), and once you think it's ready to publish, drop me a note and I'll have a look at it. Fair enough? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. BTW the Panama Canal Zone has been gone for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboo.jack (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you deleted it, I just realized I'd like a copy of the contents of File talk:SGUTVlogo.jpg, would you mind resurrecting it to User talk:pd_THOR/SGUTVlogo.jpg? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that User:Chrisisinchrist's account may have been compromised. It was under his account that the article Desmond Styles was created, which seemed to be a borderline vandalism article, but certainly fell under A7 CSD. It just seems out of character for him, since I don't see any other time that somebody nominated one of his articles for speedy deletion. I noticed that you deleted the article, so I figured I'd go to you for advice on what action to take, if any.Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 10:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is asking to be unblocked. I'm soliciting input from admins involved in the original blocking. For the moment I am seeking comment at his talk page, but it may end up being a better idea to move to ANI or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you're a bit of a deletionist. I think I am too. What's your opinion on an article like coconut doughnut? Should every iteration of food have its own article? Thanks for your input. Pdcook (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add {{WPBiography}} to Talk:Leanni Lei when I read the message about the previous deletions. I hope this may be useful to you. -- allen四names 06:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind taking a look at this one? Seems to me like a coi & pov pushing from single-purpose account, but I'm not sure what would be the best course of action in this case… don't want to make it into an edit war. Skarebo (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry for disturbing you, but you approved ConceptDraw MINDMAP article and I hope that you could help me.

Recently my account was blocked and all articles were deleted (except ConceptDraw PROJECT, but it got speedy which was rejected). The article which was approved by you was deleted by G11 too.

May I explain you the situation from side? I'm not trying to hide my COI or use proxies, I behave by Wiki rules, I wrote articles which were approved by Wiki admins and after that suddenly all of them deleted by Hu12. Moreover, he blocked my account because of bad history of ConceptDraw products in Wiki (but I was trying to fix this situation) and the existence of other accounts from this IP (VPN Internet gives us a single IP for all workers, but only I'm writing about our products, no puppets at all) and I'm evading block (write from my IP not using proxies) only for appealing and discussion. My goal is to provide useful and objective information about notable products that will met Wiki requirements. The existence of articles about our competitors products (which are far more promotional and have less references) confirms that it's possible.

Could you please give me any advice concerning this situation? I don't want to make things worse.

Many thanks in advance.

Sincerely yours, CSOWind. 195.138.71.154 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article I have now written twice. I defended it in the proper way against deletion and it was nonetheless deleted without comment. I think this is rude, inexcusible, and gives no consideration for my time. R. B. Jones is no less important than any other linguist working at a university and I think you will find hundreds have pages. Please restore the page I wrote. Tibetologist (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was User:Alan Liefting who made that nomination. Please make your case at the appropriate venue, which is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Jones (linguist), but use stronger and more useful arguments than the deprecated "there are other articles of similar obscurity" one. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike,

Will you please take a look at the Mike Cox page and revert the story back to as it was with Skarebo last week who undid earlier vandalism? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.167.66 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike,

You deleted the Phil Town page yesterday due to "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I am Phil Town's webmaster for both his official site and blog site. All I did was add both links to the "External links" section of Phil Town's wiki page. Phil is a bestselling author like Seth Godin. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin you'll see he has even more external pages. Can you please restore Phil Town's page and include those 2 external links? Thanks in advance for your consideration. Jronc23 Jronc23 (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry if you don't like talkbacks. I just have very bad luck with people missing things. Should I just not bother for admins? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to request for you to undelete the article Bunkface, a Malaysian band consisting of four members. The band became famous after its song "Through My Window" was used in a TMNet television commercial [1]. The band won the "Rockstar Awards" and "The Ultimate SHOUT! Awards" from SHOUT! awards 2009 [2], just to name an award they won. I am willing to write the article and I have a few sources, provided that the article gets your green light to be undeleted. Kristalyamaki (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I've added enough of these citations/references needed to verify some materials in the article or to provide enough info. I hope I did. I also applied the proper formatting as you advised. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, on the distant offhand chance you might like it, I tinkered with the headers of your userpage and talkpage. Now, I abase myself in apologies should this prove not to be to your liking. The code to remove is on the top lines of each page and consists of "{{User:{{BASEPAGENAME}}/Title}}". These invoke files you could tinker with if you just want to change fonts/sizes/etc.: User:Orangemike/Title and User talk:Orangemike/Title. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add my 2ø, I think it's exactly in line with Mike's motto,^[1] which I've adopted myself :) decltype (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I had that very thought in mind when making the letters not only bright orange but big, bold, and italic. Now if only I could have figured out plaid....) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant flow factory be created as an article no more. Pope132 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aight just askin. Thanx Laterz. Pope132 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, may I ask, was your reasoning for using G11 on Getjar. Have you researched the subject at all? Please undo! -- Egil (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you to do a minimum of research on this matter before deleting? Did you?

• Have you read and understood the introduction to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators?
• Do you genuinely know the difference between reverting/editing and deleting?
• Did you review at least a minimum of the almost one million Google hits on getjar to assert that this is indeed a non-notable subject for Wikipedia.
• Did you review the edit history of the page?
• Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Assume good faith?

Please don't force me to escalate this. -- Egil (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted GetJar due to G11, and Getjar due to A7. (obviously both of these should exist, one beeing a redirect to the other). So on two occasions have you deleted articles about this subject, where a trivial google search would immediately have revealed their notability. Your suggestion of me being bold and recreating the article is out of the question, I have no desire whatsoever in approaching 3RR or whatever, and anyway the right procedure is to undo the delete, restore valid content, and thereafter undo the undesireable edits. I will not do the undelete, since I created this article. -- Egil (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 articles about Michael Huebsch and Lee Nerison members of the Wisconsin State Assembly were deleted. No reason given-any suggestions? Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You deleted this page- a reference to the Detroit Lions National Football League team in 2008 being (so far) the only team to lose all 16 games in the regular season- because it's an "implausible redirect". Considering that there's a redirect for 17-0- a reference to the only season where a team (the Miami Dolphins) won all of its games, including the Super Bowl, I think it's only fair that "0-16"- still synonymous with the Lions and very well known- have a similar redirect.

Thanks.-20:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomeW (talk • contribs)

I'd like to know what your rationale was for deleting the entry on Blossom Goodchild, which happened just four days ago. The page had been up for over a year and continued to receive hits. Why is it gone? Hoopes (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a little help here. I understand I'm not supposed to copy complete articles, but it's the only thing I have to tell Firman's great story. I thought I could use material like this if I put it in quotes and provided clear attribution to the source, which I did. I doubt that the article still exists, at least I haven't been able to find it online, so a reference wouldn't mean much as far as verification goes. I knew the man and I know the story is true! I'd appreciate some guidance, I can't re-write the story nearly as well as the reporter did! LynnSGrubb (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for copyright is not a negotiable matter here; more details and advice on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I hope this is the place for my reply. If not, please advise. I don't think I have a conflict of interest, I am just a family genealogist who happens to have discovered a few family members I think are noteworthy because they have historical significance. Most are already mentioned on other pages. Firman was just the first and easiest because the work was already done by a creditable source, and I thought I could use it by giving attribution. I don't see any easy way around the problem because the article is my only source; if I rewrote it I would still have to reference it. Therefore I have requested permission from the newspaper to reproduce the article in Wikipedia. If they grant permission, would that solve the problem? LynnSGrubb (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responding to your talk.

If an article with this name could be created it has a troubling error, the final "o" needs an umlaut not an acute accent. So can we change that?

Regards, Irv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvdiamond (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Last week, I posted four articles on patient-related resources and initiatives relating to Parkinson's disease, which you deleted:

• Clinical Research Learning Institute
• People With Parkinson's Advisory Council
• Parkinson's Information Service
• Parkinson's Insights

The reason you gave for deleting these articles is that they didn't indicate why their subject was important. You also noted that my account might be blocked from editing if I continued to post such articles.

I'm respectful of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and I'm glad to work to make sure anything I post meets the proper criteria. At the same time, I do think the topics I created entries for are, in fact, important subjects (especially in the Parkinson's disease community and even beyond), and worthy of inclusion. (Perhaps the Parkinson's Insights entry may have been questionable since it was about a blog, but the I do feel the other subjects are worthy.) I would have appreciated it if, instead of deleting the articles immediately, you could have noted they need to be cleaned up or further edited to show that their topics were worthy of inclusion. I would have been glad to make the necessary changes (explain in better detail why they're important, cite more sources, etc.).

Do you think you could give it a second thought and restore the articles (at least the first three), and I will make any necessary revisions or changes to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? If you have any specific feedback or suggestions, I would be glad to consider them. Also, please do not block my account. I don't believe that failing to show the notability of the subjects of one's articles meets the criteria for blocking an account. Once again, I want to be respectful of Wikipedia and its guidelines, but also have the ability to post and edit articles on important topics.

Thank you for your help. Rlewinson (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Rlewinson[reply]

The problem was not lack of notability, but blatant conflict of interest; further feedback and advice on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion about using the sandbox. I knew this option existed, but wasn't sure how to use it properly. I will certainly keep this in mind for any new pages I create in the future.

Regarding the conflict of interest you note -- that's not the case here. All of the articles I posted last week that you deleted were about educational and patient empowerment initiatives relating to Parkinson's disease. These have nothing to do with JDRF, which focuses on type 1 diabetes. You will note in my contribution history that I've made just one edit to a JDRF-related page in the last 10 months (to update facts).

I certainly understand how you thought there might be an issue, but given what I've explained here, can you give a second thought to restoring my articles? Thanks again for your help. Rlewinson (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Rlewinson[reply]

What's the rationale here? I know the policy is that plurals should be avoided unless its a cat, list, or that's the only way the word is used (i.e. pants). In this case the term is regularly used in the singular form, as shown in the first sentence of the article. Wizard191 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you propose the deletion of the Young Legend music article. The article was not used for advertisement but for info, as Young Legend's popularity is growing in his said region. Young Legend is an artist signed to a major record label, currently has a TOP 10 hit in 6 major markets across the south. What was the exact violation of the article.JardenBooks (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a particularly shameless advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you will recall I am interested in Gustaf Nordenskiold. I would like for this or an edited version to be included under (1) arrest an exoneration or (2) create a new article "Gustaf Nordenskiold - Arrest and Exoneration"

The material was created by me from government sources.

MUCH TROUBLE SOME EXPENSE NO DANGER Irving L. Diamond Abstract* The controversy over Gustaf Nordenskiold and his collection, now a century old, has become a legendary story with persistent themes identifying him as a villain. The documents from which this paper is derived pinpoint from government archives precisely what Nordenskiold did, what the American government did about it, and which members and branches of our government took various actions. Fourteen American and Swedish officials are identified; one American, a federal official acting as a citizen, is also identified. Documentary and official records of how government officials of the United States and Sweden scrutinized what Nordenskiold had done and agreed that he could take his collection to Sweden are presented. Nordenskiold was arrested for trespassing on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. Because he was a “foreigner” he ought to have had a permit according to Section 2134 of U. S. Statutes. The United States District Attorney, after he was convinced by the local Indian agent to arrest Nordenskiold and after he had an opportunity to examine the situation a bit more closely, decided that the violation was merely technical. Three members of the president’s cabinet (State, Justice, and Interior) became involved and agreed quickly to drop the prosecution. The Bureau of Indian Affairs brought the charge in the first place and expressed doubts about the final outcome, but in the end did what the Secretary of the Interior wanted done. Nordenskiold found two factions among the citizens of the San Juan Valley and Durango and Mancos. Apparently, Reece McCloskey (involvement is based on a spoken record subject the written confirmation) led the anti-Nordenskiold faction. The faction on Gustaf’s side was led by B. K. Ritter, an official in the U.S. Land Office. In order for the case to be dismissed, this formula for settlement, which Nordenskiold was to follow, appears in a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs:

"In reply I transmit herewith a copy of a letter this day addressed to the Agent at the Southern Ute and Jicarilla Agency instructing him to permit the Baron to retain the relics removed with the exception of any skeletons or bones that there are in the lot, which are justly claimed by Indians as the bones of their ancestors or relatives. "

The local Indian agent, although he brought about the arrest, was designated to and did notify Gustaf of these terms. After the matter of the arrest was settled, Nordenskiold received permission from the Secretary of the Interior, John W. Noble, to travel across Navajo country to the Hopis and beyond. Gustaf Nordenskiold subjected himself to U.S. law; he honored his bail and accepted a formula written in Washington for settlement of his case. He was not charged with any violation relating to the collection of “relics”; in 1891 no so such law existed.

• This is a lightly edited version of the abstract to article Much Trouble Some Expense No Danger by Irving L. Diamond in Proceedings of the Anasazi Symposium 1991, Asa Hutchinson and Jack Smith Mesa Verde Museum Association 1991. http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/anasazi.htm I welcome inquiries on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvdiamond (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orange Mike,

Thank you for the comments you recently left on my user page. I can see that you are very dedicated to Wikipedia and I apprecaite that. I am just trying to show examples of antique rugs. Nazmiyal has the best collection of images. I would like to upload images from thier site to my article. Could you please give me instructions on how to do so? I have tried to follow the online guide, but so far have only been able to upload to the commons. I am a student of interior design. I used Nazmiyalantiquerugs.com as a reference as they provide many scholalry articles. Since they are a reference, I feel that I must show I used thier site. Could you please not delte that link on my posting? I want others to see the images and i want my references to be clear. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquerugs32 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, if you look at this page [3], and this link [4] and this link [5] it's obvious that there's some spamming for this rug store, going on, so we should probably just block this guy.Cathardic (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying very hard to AGF here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess I will to, but if I see one more mention of "nazmiyal antique rugs" anywhere around here, then I'm going to defcon 1.Cathardic (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemike. I've removed your PROD from The Guard (film) since I think the sources contain just about enough coverage. I admit that it's a bit borderline though, so I'd be happy to discuss (either here or at AfD) if you still disagree. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you wait for jrtechsupport to be rewritten so its worded properly, instead of deleting it? Its a hassle with you keep on deleting it, before I could even get the chance to reword it so its not spam. Or in an advertising way. It may be like that, but at least you could have waited for someone to reword it, so that it will be in view as an encyclopedic article. Instead of deleting an article that needs a chance to have some time, to grow and get bigger, and become encyclopedic. Please reply to this message. Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand, but the article was not about my company, or about me or anything. It was a article about a Website. That is a Computer Support Company. And I did not say it was going to be famous, and also. I said after I saw the notice, about the speedy deletion because it sounded like an advertisement, I was going to make it so it didn't sound like an advertisement, and wouldn't be one. And was currently was changing it so it would be encyclopedic. So it wouldn't be up for speedy deletion. I am also, a netural party to the company/website involved. I had no intentions of writing it in an advertising form. Please reply to this message. Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I appreciate your feedback. I am working on the page based on your comments- I've added footnotes, internal links and am trying to increase the number of reliable sources. Do you see improvement so far? I will continue to improve it over the new few days. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandaemde (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Orangemike. I noticed while editing the Jackson, Tennessee article that you had put it under indefinite semi-protection back in October. I can understand your use of semi-protection due based on the vandalism it was experiencing at that time, but indefinite semi-protection seems a bit excessive. Is there more to this than what I've noticed, or would do you plan to lift the protection at some point? --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick action. Glad I could help jostle your memory. --RL0919 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemike&action=edit

I fail to see how the article, as written, is any different than that of North by Northeast, Halifax Pop Explosion, Evolve Festival, Celtic Colours, or Stan Rogers Folk Festival. There was no more tone of spam or advertisement in the article than any other written about a specific event.

Stoked for the Holidays is an annual event, important to many people who live in the Sydney NS area and return for the holidays each year. Unlike other I listed, specifically Celtic Colours which is in the same exact area each year, this event is specifically used to nurture and maintain a music scene that is six hours from the next closest city (Halifax). It may not be important to many who grew up outside the community, but much of our population lives in other regions and many of those people make this event an important part of their visit back each year for the holidays.

I believe the article should be reinstated. Wikipedia should have more articles that are regional and interest people of all walks of life. I read Wikipedia for hours each day at work and more articles like this would really help in showing culture of smaller areas rather than just that of major centers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undertheunderground (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with non-mainstream culture, much of the information comes from the source itself.

CBLocals.com is an amazingly popular blog set up that gets thousands of unique hits each month and was the starting point for expansion (Halifaxlocals, Monctonlocals, etc) in Eastern Canada. In true internet fashion, the site has developed from an informal forum to a more journalistic approach over the last 12 years of existence, but there is no debating it's notability.

By doing a little searching, you can easily find information on the event on the web. Here shows a listing of the past ten years of the event as well as core page entries outlining the development of the event.

If you google the event, you can easily find a facebook group for the event and the gift exchange, which is run by a university radio station. You can also find video of a nationally regognized band (Drowning Shakespeare) playing at the event, as well as an entry on the MakePovertyHistory website.

Again, look at the Celtic Colours entry. Look at the Evolve festival entry. Look at pretty much every other festival or event entry. This entry is no more spam or promotional than those. Despite the event perhaps lacking international relevance, the event showcases the music and culture of a specific area. It is relevant to anyone in the area, of which there is near 100,00 people, as well as the thousands that have moved away over the last ten years to Ontario, Alberta, and even the USA.

I think you are being a little too hard ass on this article. I think there are bigger battles to wage than taking down an article about an important event in a small area's underground culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undertheunderground (talk • contribs) 10:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undertheunderground (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undid the redirect for Uzbekistan 2020 since it seems fairly noteable. It has a lot of mention online (just under 10,000 hits on Google), and while that is mostly due to the payment for Monica Bellucci's presence, I'd note that this is the most attention any Uzbek organization has received. It's also the largest PR push Uzbekistan has made in Europe, which is interesting since there there has been an ongoing political debate over how (or if) the EU should deal with senior Uzbek officials, especially considering their horrific human rights record and events like Andijon. I'd mention it in the article myself, but that would be OR - I'm sure the Central Asia analysts at sights like EurasiaNet will write more on it soon, which will help to expand the article. Lola Karimova has founded other organizations before (none of which deserve article, I'd say), but nothing this bold, or with this much attention. P.S. I just saw you nominated the article for deletion - I probably should I written on your talk page first with my rational before undoing your edit (I'm a slow typer). Anyway, hope this clears things up, and you could undo the AFD? Otebig (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore this article. It's widely cited by many news stories. It got tagged for deletion within minutes of creation, and you deleted it before I even had a chance to put in the hangon. Bachcell (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has citations and references at the end of the article, why the speedy delete? Bachcell (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Orangemike, did you intend to salt the talk page but the not article here? Oh, and it's also copied from http://www1.nefafoundation.org/aboutus.html in addition to any other issues. CIreland (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, nice profile pic. I find myself unappreciative of your vibrant post to my talk page. I will attempt an explanation. My post to the $20 bill page is done so in a way as to preserve the original text (added by whomever) that "These claims have been demonstrated to be either coincidental or contrived." That statement was cited with a lone reference to Snopes. My edit attempts to clarify what was a blanket (and dismissive) statement. Snopes is merely able to point out that the bill's design was added in 1998, but that in fact would only debunk one of two lines of thinking. I intend my edit to be a mild clarification of this. Jcool5 (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intent to present as fact anything that I am not able to document. My intent is to clarify what is a blanket statement (stated above). Please offer recommendations as to how this might be done. Jcool5 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my intent is to correct what I see as a statement that is not fully supported by the source cited with it. "These claims have been demonstrated to be either coincidental or contrived" is a stretch from what Snopes is able to present. When you are dealing with documenting fact, I don't believe you can be dismissive without the appropriate sources to back it up... Jcool5 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes does not classify the email as a "hoax". It rates the truthfullness of the email with a White bullet (i.e. with no bullet at all; green - true, red - false, etc.), the rating for a veracity that is "unclassifiable". The wording of the current section gives the impression that the "conspiracy" in the email has been proven false, when that is not the case. Jcool5 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest the following edit:

 "An email that emerged after the events of 9/11 alleges that folding the twenty-dollar bill a certain way produces images which
 appear to be 9/11 related (specifically the World Trade Center and the Pentagon burning).[9]"

Jcool5 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the two images I up loaded for the Three Investigators page. They were HqThreeInvestagators.jpg and SalvageyardThreeInvestigators.gif because you claimed that it had an improper license. I went through all the hoops or so I thought and got both of them copyrighted. I am trying to understand how Wikipedia works but every time I think I got some thing right I'm wrong and I am really getting frustrated and am thinking about quitting after only a short time editing here. Please respond and help me understand what I am doing wrong. --Ebnielsen (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got permission from the man that created those images and they were taken down because I checked the wrong box? That part of the uploading process could be made a lot clearer, and why do you have all those options up when one is good all the time and the others only rarely? It seems to me that you need a law degree in copyright law to upload any thing. I thought the whole purpose of Wikipedia was to let any one post on it as long as it's correct and noteworthy. --Ebnielsen (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemike! You recently blocked Silvermine Guild Arts Center (talk · contribs) for violating username policy because it is the name of an organization. I believe SGAC (talk · contribs) is the same editor, who created Silvermine Guild Arts Center. Given the context, I believe the username violates the username policy for the same reason. Singularity42 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have counseled Kidfit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding conflict of interest and created pschooled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for their use. Fred Talk 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Orange Mike. Pls take a look at Second coming. There's a user who is insisting on using colon (:) notation to move most paragraphs to the right in a completely non-standard manner. I've taken them out and he reverts. He e-mailed me that he thinks the indents make it easier to read with so many templates on the left. I don't want an edit war, and need your advice, please. Thanks! Afaprof01 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you AFTER you emailed me, and I didn't say "with so many templates on the left", I said "sections were indistinguishable due to so many quotes and sidebars" -- RogerZoel 00:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC) (updated by Roger Zoel 20 Nov 09 - omitted part of sentence in error).

Orange Mike, thanks for the prompt action. I'm amazed at the number of requests that have appeared on your Talk page in the last 22 hours! Afaprof01 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, Mary. I reverted half the edits on that page...sheesh! -- RogerZoel 03:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I think you may have been a bit hasty in deleting the "Outlaw Preachers" article. Your reason in the deletion log was A7, but I was able to find the Google cache of the article and it looks pretty significant to me. "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance." Although I think the group is important for other reasons, I want to point out that Jay Bakker (son of Jim and Tammy Faye) is one of the founding members of the group. I appreciate your deletionist zeal, I agree that there are many pointless articles here, but I don't think this is one of them. Thanks, Josh Paddingtonjbear (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too have looked at the Google cached version of this article. I cannot see any plausible claim of significance. How significant Jay Bakker may be is open to debate, but even if he is extremely significant I don't see that his significance is inherited. Certainly who his parents are is irrelevant. Also none of the "references" in the articles is, as far as I can see, to an independent source. In short, I think Orangemike was quite right. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article (aside from being a shameless violation of our WP:NPOV rules) was not sourced to anything but blogs and the like. There was no credible assertion of notability. If the original author asks, I could userfy it to a sandbox for them to find some reliable sources; but I feel that an A7 (or a G11, for that matter) was fully justified. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bakker and his current church were significant enough that Sundance Channel made a 6 part documentary about him. How high of a standard of significance are you really trying to set? On the topic of how notable the topic is, I'd invite you to reread the section on "non-criteria". This article has also made a credible claim to significance, again please reread A7 for your comments about the quality of the sources, that criteria does not apply even if the sources are not reliable. For the claim of G11 and NPOV, I really think you're just being unfair at this point. Take a look at the google cache, this is not an advertisement. If there is some other reason that you think this article should not exist please let me know so that I can address it, but so far I think I've made a good case in favor of keeping it. Thanks, Josh Paddingtonjbear (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are making a case for Bakker as notable; that's irrelevant to this discussion, as notability is not inherited. 2. The wording for A7 specifically say, "no credible assertion". 3. The G11/NPOV is triggered by language like, As to the illiteracy claim by Silva, it is completely unfounded." Does that sound like a neutral POV, or a defense by an advocate? 4. Would you like me to userfy this for you to work on some? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your points. 1. Notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion, also where is it stated that it is not inherited. If this is a valid reason for deletion, I don't think it should apply to groups. Aren't groups made significant partly by who their members are? 2. The article makes several credible assertions, but you're right that they aren't well supported, nevertheless that doesn't qualify for A7. To avoid speedy deletion the claims only need to be plausible, which I think they are. 3. The passage you quote is a good example of how this is more than an advertisement, so G11 does not apply. Who would include a quote from their critics in an advertisement? As for NPOV, you are right, but that is not a criteria for speedy deletion. 4. I didn't start this article, but I'd like to improve it, so my preference would be that you undelete it and allow this website to function collaboratively. It seems that you think this article can never be shown to be significant. What improvements would it take to establish that? I don't want to put hours of work into it if you're going to simply delete it. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a google search for "Outlaw Preachers" will come up with several examples of independent sources that talk about the group. Admittedly they are mostly critics like Ken Silva, but the existence of critics to a group would suggest that it is significant and even notable. Paddingtonjbear (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a test page of Bunkface at User:Kristalyamaki/Bunkface. How's it? Can it be used? Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Actually, no, the Malaysian music scene is quite distorted (even chart topping singers aren't really famous) and there is no national music chart. In Malaysia, to achieve Platinum Album status, one singer or band only has to sell 20,000 albums compared to 1,000,000 in the United States (refer: List of music recording sales certifications, therefore, a few awards and being listed on radio station charts would be the best to state the band's notability in the country. In fact, if you talk about WP:MUSIC, I doubt many from [6] would have passed it either. Kristalyamaki (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I get the green light to restart the page? Kristalyamaki (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to point out that you didn't notify MMPROMO (talk · contribs) of your block. I know that you always take care of such notifications, so this must've just been an oversight. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. If you have time, would you mind reviewing this? Cheers, m.o.p 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemike, I noticed you proposed the above article for deletion. A google scholar and books search show real notability for the Irdeto standard. The article the way it is now is a bit of a mess, but the content there could be used for a good article on the Irdeto technology. I know, I know, {{sofixit}}, and I'll make a start, but I didn't want to remove the PROD before getting started, and I don't have the time now, so I'd like to ask you to remove the PROD for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiki, wikify, wikilinks, redlinks, purplelinks, dufuslinks -- whatever -- I say tomaaaaaato, you say tomAAAAAto, big deal. -- Roger Zoel 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your religious babble harassment quotations to yourself for which is not welcomed with me. If you please, I don't care to strike up any quaint conversations with you - Thanks -- Roger Zoel 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

you deleted my article and advised i used a subpage to prepare my article but i cant figure out how to open one. i tried reading through all the links but everytime i click on subpage in my contributions tab nothing happens. what am i doing wrong (C11rjs (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

thanks for the aditional help, the chances are it will become something, the ratings are increasing daily, yes maybe that quote was a bit of stupid quote but the producers and artists on that station arnt actually that bad. just remember when they are big that you were the one who deleted them from here before i had a chance to actually create a fully reasonable and justified article. thanks for your help anyway (C11rjs (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have counseled bagbagostomycovers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding conflict of interest and create a new account for them, stevecarmichael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am somewhat skeptical regarding this one and will pay extra attention. Fred Talk 01:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've unblocked this account since its user has acknowledged his mistake and made a promise to follow policy. I'll keep track of his new account & IP to make sure there's no more promotional activity. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain where there is any promotional material on the page Dean Hale that I created?

Ellen Shane (talk) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

In his spare time, Hale is an avid family man ... Since making Tampa his permanent home, Hale has become very involved with his community and charitable organizations. ... He just filed and is already expected to beat the incumbent. ... He is a rising star on the political scene and there will be a lot more articles about him in the future. ... He is very well known in Tampa and people should have a chance to know a little about this guy. These do not read like the work of somebody trying to create an encyclopedic article, but rather like the words of somebody trying to get publicity for a candidate for a local office. Please read our guidelines for biographical articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments were no where on the page !!! You put up for speedy deletion stating something about notability. I put those comments in the talk or discussion page as you requested stating why this guy, a well known Tampa citizen is notable. You should quit trying to read minds and just read the article and the news articles about this guy.

An encyclopedia just gives factual information bout a person. Which my page did.

No offense, but you should take your mind reading act to Vegas.

Ellen Shane (talk) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

On the contrary, the first two sentences were taken directly from the article you created. The other three were quoted from things you said in discussion, and were quoted to display your stated motivation in creating this article. You apparently are still not reading the information I've tried to provide about who is or is not notable enough to get an article in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what dictionary you are using to define promoting or promotional, but the first two sentences you quote are neither.

Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines state: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

Considering the gentlemen just filed, I believe the common person (which Wikipedia caters to) would believe the two articles on Mr. Hale would be significant coverage and allow for future edits on Mr. Hale as time went by.

It seems that Wikipedia's standards do not get applied evenly or fairly across the board. Your personal history of deletion and that of other "administrators" would indicate that you get some type of sick joy in deleting articles that do not meet your personal standard. When clearly Wikipedia is not just about you. Please do not forget that fact.

You make your case by citing Wikipedia guidelines or standards, but the very guidelnes or standards that you quote do not show cause for article deletion.

Yes, I am an attorney, and if there were actual rules or guidelines that you must follow, you would legally not have a case to stand on.

However, it appears that Wikipedia does not care about uniformly policing their own guidelines or standards.

Again, your job is to read articles from a factual standpoint and not try to interpret (like a God) what the writers intent was or is.

Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Shane (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • So in essence, you're trying to say 'This guy is notable because I've created two articles on him'? 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No, that's not fair to her. She is saying that the articles in the local paper saying he had filed for a local office (whose incumbent would not meet our notability standards for politicians) make him notable. Let's be fair here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, this user brought up this article on my talk page also. TNXMan 18:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no offense, but do you guys even read the articles before you delete? If you had bothered to read the actual article and not just skimmed before deletion, you would have seen that two reporters, Christian Wade and Jane Zink from Tampa Bays two major newspapers (Tampa Tribune and St. Pete Times) took the time to write articles about this guy. Not me. But I guess if two major newpapers find Mr. Hale notable, they are just plain crazy. If Wikipedia admnins do not see the notability, than obviously the two paid reporters and teh two major newspapers must be wrong.

Come on guys, be sensible before you try to defend your unnecessary deltions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Shane (talk • contribs) 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, sign your name (~~~~). Second, you don't need to create a new topic every time you post on his page. HalfShadow 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I did read the articles. In total, they consisted of five brief paragraphs about Hale, written by the local City Hall beat reporters, who clearly did not find him notable as we understand the term (even the local crank perennial candidate may get a brief mention like this in the local paper when he files for office). These fail laughably to meet our standards of substantial coverage. Candidates are seldom notable simply by being candidates; it should be noted that even the incumbent against whom Hale is running is not notable enough to have an article here. I neither know nor care about either candidate; I care about the standards I was designated to uphold. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, so the Wikipedia standard is "Does Orange Mike care?" If he does not care about Tampa Politics than obviously nobody else would. What kind of God complex are you on?

Laughable. You try to hold your self off as some type of elitist. Very funny.

Ellen Shane (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? I was attempting to clarify that I am neutral in this matter, to pre-empt any bogus allegations of bias against either candidate. How does that translate to "elitist"? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you should see me; I'm both superior to you and I have a cooler name than both of you. I'm also humble. HalfShadow 18:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to expect nothing better.

Be consistent guys. You somehow thought the previous incumbent notable enough to be on Wikipedia (Shawn Harrisson), but not the current incumbent. Standards. What standards? Nothing but random enforcement.

Your inconsistancy is consistent.

Ellen Shane (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd mention what else is consistent here, but I don't want to get in trouble. HalfShadow 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting OrangeMike to care more about local politics would definitely be a good thing. However, local politicians (and especially candidates for local political office) are not usually considered notable and are generally (and fairly consistently) excluded from Wikipedia, even though they often receive some local news coverage. I have a joke about incontinence, but I think it might be inappropriate, even in a discussion about Florida politicians. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, the article that Ms. Shane is referring to is Shawn Harrison (politician). GlassCobra 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I had received a comment in my first review that my article looks like an advertisement. I have attempted to rewrite the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fiberlink/sandbox) with an encyclopedic tone. Can you please review my article? If there are any sections which appear to be still like an advertising effort, please point out that sections and give appropriate examples. I would like to identify my mistake and rectify it. I am here to stay and would like to contribute more to wiki writing.

Thank you.. Fiberlink (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]