Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 16 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present. |
Join The Impact
Join the Impact has gained total public attention recently by orchestrating hundreds of thousands of people to protest in the matter of a week. This is a notable phenomenon that comes on the wings of the Obama victory using the same technology. There are articles about the group and the protests all over the news, including the four page NY Times article I sourced. I feel the deletion of this article without discussion is an abuse of that function. I know others would have found this to be worthy of inclusion. I do not appreciate spending time on an article and having it deleted WITHOUT even any discussion. That is HIGHLY undemocratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftylib (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 November 2008
The Coming Home Network
Hey Mike,
I am wondering why you deleted the article so quickly without considering the notes to my hangon? I would appreciate any advice, as The Coming Home Network is a valuable ministry to tens of thousands of people. The information we collect is used by most people when research is done on the topic of conversion. The Network is visited by over a million online people a month.
The page to Marcus Grodi details the life of arguably Americas best known convert. Who is known around the world through his show on EWTN, radio, speaking and books. He is an inspiration to thousands of people looking to make the same bold step he made, let alone his witness has caused Lord knows how many people to look deeper into their faith.
Please advise me. Thanks in advance.--R Rodgers 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNI (talk • contribs)
An American
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)
Unigo
Hi Orangemike,
I was hoping that you could unprotect Unigo so that I could start the article. It was previously deleted because the article did not indicate its significance and then you protected it from being recreated, rightfully so at the time (over two months ago). I was hoping you could unprotect the page because since the deletion, Unigo is now very notable and I'd like to create the page to demonstrate why. The Unigo site has been a topic of conversation in higher education and has been written about in several publications including The New York Times, Forbes Magazine, and blogs such as Mashable. During its first week of launch the Unigo site had more than 1.3 million page views. The site is backed by many notable people including ConsumerSearch founder Carl Hamann. Unigo's founder is Jordan Goldman, who was featured in The Gatekeepers, a non-fiction book on higher education written by journalist Jacques Steinberg. Goldman also wrote a bestselling college guidebook published by Penguin Books. Unigo is the first of its kind -- a free online college resource and student platform covering every four-year college in the United States and is used by high school students, college students, parents and counselors worldwide.
The site has had several inquiries as to why it is not on Wikipedia, both from users of the site and from bloggers/writers doing posts and stories about the site. I believe that I could start the article appropriately now that it is notable and have many, many sources I would be able to use to create it. Thank so much Orangemike. pradoec (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for replying so quickly. Here are the reliable, independent secondary sources I mentioned above which demonstrates significant coverage of Unigo -- "The Tell-All Campus Tour" The New York Times, Sept. 19, 2008. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/magazine/21unigo-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=unigo&st=cse) -- This was a 3,500-word feature written about Unigo for the The New York Times Magazine. -- "Generation YouTube" Forbes Magazine, Oct. 7, 2008 (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/10/06/unigo-theunet-youtube-tech-personal-cx_hs_1007unigo.html) -- This article also talks about some of Unigo's notable backers. -- "Unigo Puts Users in Charge of College Reviews" Mashable, Sept. 19, 2008 (http://mashable.com/2008/09/19/unigo/) -- The Unigo site was reviewed by a notable tech blog. I have other independent sources that I would be able to use for the article, including The Chronicle of Higher Education. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks again for discussing this with me Orangemike! pradoec (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping me fix my references. This is the first time I've created an article and will continue to work to get it right! If you have anything specific you'd like to have me improve, I always appreciate pointers. Thanks again Orangemike. pradoec (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Spam
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)
Regarding blogs, Myspace, etc.
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)
- 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)
Query on your deletion
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)
Query on your deletion
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)
Deletion of We R One
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)
Sergio Bernadin
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)
Deletion review for Skyzoo
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)
TCP delayed acknowledgment
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.
The Mens Room
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.
Warning tags on Pete Snyder article
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)
User talk:Niki76 speedy deletion for copyvio
"Uri Geller"article must be deleted.I report abuse and copyright vilation.--Niki76 (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)niki76
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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- Request outstanding 1 week. —Sladen (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Cynthia Basinet
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)
Sonichu
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)
Ptawug
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)
Hayley Williams
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
Sikh extremism
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)
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)
Kink.com
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)
kink.com
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)
Non-encyclopedic content? Theological dispute? Personal research?
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)
Diana Glyer article
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)
Deletion review for Kink.com
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)
Question on COI block
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)
Mike Glyer
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)
Gavin.collins RFC/U
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)
Help Needed: New Photo for J. Michael Straczynski
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)
MKE (tabloid)
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.
South African wireless user groups
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)
Bongshang entries deletion
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)
Express 37 image deletion
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).
Random question
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)
Conflict of Interest tag on "Matthew Stadler"
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)
Speedy Deletion IBB Support Australia
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)
Deletion review for Simon Chorley Art & Antiques
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).
- A message for : Orangemike.
Notability tag
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)
Cupertino
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
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)
re portrait of Steve Glickman
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)
Speedy Deletion IBD Support Australia Follow -up
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)
the Barbara Rosenthal article (first section and citations)
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)
ShockHound
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)