User talk:Orangemike

URL Blacklisting

Thanks for the info, I took it up on the requests page and was told the same thing - not that I was surprised. Unfortunately in this case I believe Wiki users are disadvantaged. For my forum is hosted for free by Invision, I cannot afford a domain name, a proper webhost or to advertise. Many people have benefitted from my forum, and tell me their astonishment on having discovered a still active DK community. I'll have to make a proper website soon.

By the way, your name "Orange Mike" is very unsuitable for your claims for a United Ireland. I'd also like to say: mind your own business - in relation to your apparent desire for a United Ireland and an indepedent Scotland. BonnieDonny (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I accept the Wikipedia stance despite some reservations. But you're delluded if you think the Orange Order is a vehicle for Irish republicanism. And Protestants in favour of a united Ireland? Maybe a few, but you'll have a few Catholics in support of the Union. As for the tricolour, well the idea of peace between the two communities was a nice one, but when you see that flag being waved by IRA terrorists and sympathisers you realise that it is all bullshit. I have no idea what your Manx wife has to do with this. Americans like you are just what Sinn Fein and their paramilitary wing needed during the Troubles - you were taken in by the idea of a "revolution" against those "nasty Brits", but what it really was was murder and suffering and pain (a lot of which was funded by Yanks). I'm sure 9-11 changed a lot of Americans' views on Northern Ireland, and so it should, but it speaks wonders for American empathy when your wife or your kids have to be blown up by terrorists before you concede terrorism is wrong. Rant over. BonnieDonny (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a rather dull read to me. Why do you care about Northern Ireland and Scotland leaving the UK? Why not Cornwall as well, whilst you're at it? BonnieDonny (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm starting to agree with the crazy guy who wants to vandalise your page. I'm fed up with ignorant yanks with Irish and Braveheart fetishes who think they know what's good for the rest of the world. Plastic Paddies are perhaps the most annoying, especially when they're so dumb that they profess a love for the colour orange - despite its obvious loyalist connotations (just take the CAIN website > symbols > Unionist and Loyalist). Oh, and get a shave. Apologies for the ad hominem, though I'm not really that sorry! Good night, Josephine. BonnieDonny (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets cool it. This is Wikipedia. Not a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboy14 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Centurion (Scarrow novel)

I discovered that Centurion (Scarrow novel) was included on the The Sunday Times (London) list of fiction hardback bestsellers. I can't find the date when The Sunday Times published that list, though. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel). --Eastmain (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "discovered"? If it isn't verifiable, we can't use it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• By "discovered", I mean that I found the information at the Sunday Times' website using Google. That makes it verifiable. --Eastmain (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Hi Orangemike, a newly registered user move International School of Beijing to Idiots Suck Balls ([1]). Is it possible to remove Redirect from Idiots Suck Balls from the headline of International School of Beijing? Thank you--NAHID 10:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ASKroeber

Unblock request at User talk:ASKroeber. Worth a second chance? Bovlb (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaleidoscope

I, on the other hand, have to admit to being a long-time Wintel-only drudge. Some of us like to suffer... --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing User:Bearian page

Possibly uncivil behavior noted, but as I've yet to see it formally noted anywhere in Wikipedi I must chalk that up to personal preference.

As for the grammatical edit, The Chicago Manual of Style notes that, while the original form may be technically correct, if it is offensive to the reader's eye the form should be altered if an equivalent form is more pleasing. But, whatever floats the boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpchurch (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not getting it. Were you referring to this?

Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I feel this is far too general a guideline by which to deem behavior uncivil. In addition, I was simply attempting to do something I would hope someone would do for me.

No offense was intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpchurch (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Miro Gallery

You prod'd the article as nn. The Gallery is internationally renowned. If you have any concerns about visual arts articles, feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts for a review by project editors. Ty 03:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Finance academy Study Abroad Program

Any chance you could take a look at this 'article' - Finance academy Study Abroad Program. I have twice tagged it for speedy deletion as spam, and the author has twice removed the deletion tag. I have now tagged it again with a Proposed Deletion tag, but don't for a moment believe it will stay there very long. Many thanks.--seahamlass 14:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!--seahamlass 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FIREFLY

just to make sure i am understanding the process correctly and you seem like the guy who would know... i added a comment to the FIREFLY page that the basic premise of the evacuation of earth and human refugees is also used in the joss whedon/ben edlund-written TITAN AE. i wouldn't have included this had the same creative team not been involved (say, the premise was used in another movie or book twenty years ago). i believe this is intersting information the same way larry cohen wrote both CELLULAR and PHONE BOOTH or michael crichton wrote JURASSIC PARK and WESTWORLD, both works that use the same premise in different ways.

please explain what qualifies as a valid source? can any monkey make a website that references the same information and i can use that regardless of their credentials? that seems somewhat shoddy. i am referencing events explained in the synopsis of both wikipedia pages and explained in the first five minutes of both films, not trying to draw and conclusions.

i trust you assume some responsibility for this page and you'll do what's correct but i would like to know how these matters are dealt with for future reference.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenjamesford (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination)

Thank you for your support on my talkpage. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Game That Is In Your Head

We edit conflicted. Trust you'll find the redirect appropriate. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ama Sumani

Can you explain the rationale for speedy deleting Ama Sumani? The article was developed beyond stub status, and being that her case was brought up for national debate in the UK (via the Lancet and various clergymen, along with news coverage lasting several cycles) it seems to me it clears the hurdle of asserting significance. I concede there may be an issue with WP:BIO1E, but that sounds like an issue for AFD to decide. hateless 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You've made some good points; I've restored this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for looking into this. hateless 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notching

Congratulations Mike, another new wikipedian posts their first ever article and within minutes it's dead and skewered ready for an entirely undeserved speedy deletion. That's a really good way to encourage people to contribute, quite probably people who know little about computers, nothing about wikipedia and a whole lot about some valuable external topic. Do you think you've driven them away yet?

If there was a "Hairtrigger barnstar", I'd award you one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yilmaz Bektas

Hi, An article about Yilmaz Bektas deteled bec. (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance) If he 's not indicate importance, then requesting to delete all other result in other articles Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybektas2 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cashel Dennehy Article

I inserted an image into the article. And I think the article may be ready to be moved back into the mainspace. Take a look at it, and leave a note on my talk page. Bboy14 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at that, thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboy14 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so is the article still up for speedy deletion right now? Or is the speedy deletion tag just still on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboy14 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: College of Pharmacy (Pune)‎

Hey OM, I denied the speedy on this one (still had it watchlisted from the AfD). Terriers fan added some info, including sourcing, since the AfD. I'm still not sure if it's enough to pass the threshold of notability, but it is not exactly the previously deleted article (G4). Pastordavid (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lou Holtz

I've taken the liberty of adding Lou Holtz to the blackface see also section (which I also re-ordered a trifle) as well as remove the "original research or unverified claims" template. Robert Greer (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FSU Hymns

what is wrong with the page, it is encyclopedic not just a place to have them sit at, the hymns presented here are public domain, the alma mater is composed prior to 1923. the hymn to the garnet and the gold have not copyright information in the registry... this is directly from the FSU school of music. they are presented here as an encyclopedic reference--68.35.201.31 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

For this edit[2]. Surely you know better than to use my talk page to complain about me to another Wikipedian. Wikidemo (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Second warning. Please stop trolling my talk page. These edits are simple harassment, not in good faith.[3][4] Wikidemo (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I have a right to express my opinion about your uncivil behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:POINT. Misuse of our civility (or any other) policies in order to score "points" against another editor is inappropriate and disruptive. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you make that comment toward Wikidemo also, otherwise you are getting involved in a dispute between two editors and are attempting to intimidate me into backing down from from my contention that Wikidemo needs to engage in civil behavior also. Please read the rules for civility yourself.--InaMaka (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this has spilled over to your talk page. InaMaka apparently copied the above discussion from my page to make some kind of point. He fixated on me and began to insert random pot shots in the middle of other people's discussions, after I reverted his attempt to insert a salacious degree of detail about a DUI arrest in a BLP article. The tit-for-tat argumentation style and parroting civility warnings and appeals to policy without really understanding them is familiar. I wonder if that's just the standard operating procedure for tendentious editors, or if we perhaps have a sock who has done this before under a different guise. I'm hoping he got the message and will stop trying to harass me after the squawking has died down. Thanks for noticing and, again, sorry if some of this trouble rubs off on you. Wikidemo (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember it requires two people for "tit-for-tat" arguments to continue. Wikidemo has obviously been participating also. I'm hoping that Wikidemo has got the message and he engages in more civil behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never been uncivil to this odd editor but he or she seems to want to have the last word. Not sure I can do much about that. Wikidemo (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Garyskaff23

Please review Gary's edits. There were a few somewhat positive (or at least non-negative) edits early one, but now all the account does is waste everyone's time. I or someone else ends up reverting every edit. My question is: should this account get a longer term block (say a month) or should it get an indef block for persistent vandalism? I left a nice polite message, which didn't help. I'm very frustrated with Gary, so I thought that I should have someone else look this situation over. Royalbroil 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with Gary. I felt too biased against him to make a fair assessment because I spent time trying to work with him (which now feels like a complete waste of time). Whenever I approach you for a second/unbiased opinion, like I did this time, I want you to do what you think is just (like you did) and not pander to my opinion or suggestions. I'm able to stand up for myself (of course) and I'm not scared to use the ban hammer. Royalbroil 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To followup, the user got an indef block because of the vandalism and because they kept leaving unblock requests. I'm watching a probably sock who will get an indef if they do anything more on those same lines. Royalbroil 15:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Ellisys page

Hello OrangeMike;
Thanks for helping with this page. Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to make this an appropriate posting. Unfortunately, like many technology areas, this is a new field and there aren't too many references that can be added. This technology is too new to be in textbooks. The page is notable because the term "Ellisys" is starting to be recognized (although techies aren't exactly sure what it means, hence the posting) and because of the novel testing approaches introduced by the company. Your suggestions welcomed; and I'll see what I can do.
Greg720graham (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Hey, Mike, do you think I handled Terpterp (talk · contribs) appropriately? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was really irritated by the user and just wanted to self-check. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Fall of the Templar

Hey Orange Mike, i dont know if you have any experience with book articles but I figured I should ask you since your an admin. I have read the entire book of The Fall of the Templar. I think it would make the article better if I made a synopsis of each chapter(29 chapters). I dont know if my edit would just get reverted or if it would helped boost the article to start score. You tell me dude. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa dude pump your breaks. This article is good!! The article does not deserve to be deleted. This another one of those situations where you would have delete every article of the book series unless YOU plan on remaking them yourself!? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All right dude think about what your about to do. That means that there will be basically NO dam@ coverage on those books. Any book is notable. Unless it was basically an outcast and basically nobody ever even read it, then hell yeah, then you can do your thing, but this is a HUGE move big guy. I dont think your doing the right freaking thing Orange. Agrily- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So just becaude there are a bunch of books in the world means that this page should not be noticed!? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I see you got rid of some Vandalism on my page, Thanks for that. --Hibernian (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearspring

Mike, do you mind giving the Clearspring page a look? I worked with a more experienced Wikipedia person in an IRC chatroom to make some changes. Would love to hear your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorpus (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Parker

Care to do the honors? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi OrangeMike. I'm the guy trying to get his talk pages deleted - I'm formerly Kek15 and currently an IP, but we don't need to go into the hows and whys. If you could at least delete the Kek15 talk pages - I wasn't sure what your edit summary meant. (Thumbs up or down on the deletion at kek15.

I also enjoyed checking out your talk page. Just wanted to mention one thing (as a former copy editor - 10 years). Re: the phrase "a historically black university" - that should be "AN historically black university."

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/esliart.html

Thanks - a fellow lefty - (formerly Kek15) 72.92.4.157 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I have already scrambled my password. Can't you tell through my IP that it matches the IP of Kek15 - otherwise check with Keeper76 - he will vouch that we are one and the same. Thank you. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey OM, I'm pretty sure this is resolved now, see my talkpage for further dialogue if you wish, otherwise, what's done is done, time to move along. Cheers to all, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I loved that show "Win Ben Stein's Money." And Jimmy Kimmel was funny as heck. Did you have a good time doing the show? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good experience - I give you credit for doing it. I have an old friend (MIT grad) who appeared on Jeopardy and didn't do that well - but he had a great time regardless. (Perhaps your sartorial splendor helped you to get on the show? And of course your brains.) 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And I agree that Bush et al are war criminals. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, why are you deleting so many pages?

I made a page on one of my favourite authors, who has written a substantial amount of books and is in the process of making one of them into a movie. You deleted my first ever article, on which I spent ages writing, proof reading, adding referances and checking the guidelines for, and then I posted it, pleased with myself. I know Mr Lewis but I only spoke breifly about his family and personal life. Lots of authors pages are available on wikipedia, and I enclose a link to kevin lewis' site - http://www.kevinlewisonline.com/ and google - www.google.com , which incase you try to delete that, is a search engine for you to look up Kevin Lewis on. I now have to rewrite the unsaved document and find all the information again, unless you'd care to do it for me. I'm very upset and confused, and a reply would be nice. Thank you. ps - some PEOPLE on wikipedia, who are just people. You might want to delete them aswell: The queen of england, JK rowling, Awful Tony Blair, Pathetic George Bush - your hero, Jesus, EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE ABOUT A PERSON ON WIKIPEDIA. I prove my point. Please retract the deletion or write a new article based on the site. Yours annoyed, (Hamsterdowns (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Charles Augustus Hilton

I strongly disagree with your speedy deletion of Charles Augustus Hilton, the rationale for which you claimed was A7: no assertion of notability. That's precisely what many at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Augustus Hilton were debating: whether or not the article's claim to Hilton, New York being named after the subject made the subject notable enough for inclusion. By speedy deleting, you unilaterally made a decision that was contested in the same AFD that you posted in. I ask you to please reconsider your deletion of this page, as this was rather an abrupt and unexpected end to an ongoing community discussion. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Charles Augustus Hilton

I have asked for a deletion review of Charles Augustus Hilton. Since you speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Flaming Thunder

Why did you delete the Flaming Thunder page? I put the hangon tag on it exactly as requested, I went to the talk page exactly as requested, left an explanation exactly as requested, waited for the feedback the message promised, and then both the page and the talk were deleted -- even though I was using existing pages on similar software (MatLab and Python) as my guidelines.

DavidBParker (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Flaming Thunder

I feel that I have adequately addressed your and FCSundae's concerns, and am willing add the information you requested and delete the wording you object to, so could you please restore the page? Thanks!

DavidBParker (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: The film is not notable, as far as I can see...

American Drug War: The Last White Hope won first place in four consecutive film festivals and was picked up by Showtime to air for the next two years. It's also currently airing on Australia's Foxtel channel. Esai Morales brought up the film on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher and his comments were the focus of a segment on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show. All of this except for the festibal awards has happened in the last month or so. The film features interviews with numerous prominent individuals and is being privately shown in theaters by activist groups around the country. That's not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EndTheDrugWar (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Taken to user's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As a general question re: film articles, what's the policy on ELs to IMDB? I notice you removed a great swathe of them from this article, including one to IMDB. As the standard reference database for films, this seems to be one justifiable case for EL. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the IMDb link, Andy; I've restored that one (good catch). As a rule, while IMDb is not considered a reliable source, most film and many actor articles do have external links to the relevant IMDb article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

LNWR 2-2-2 3020 Cornwall & others

• LMS 5MT Black 5 44806
• GWR 4900 Class 4979 Wootton Hall

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.

Once again, another newbie appears on wikipedia, creates an article and you slap them straight in the face with a "speedy delete". What sort of impression do you think this creates? We're supposed to be creating something here, not seeking better and faster reasons to delete it! They're not good articles, so why not suggest how they might be improved? They're certainly not "problem" articles where it's important to kill them as fast as possible. At least give them the grace of an AfD and consensus discussion (remember those?) with sufficient time for the relevant community or project to have some discussion as to whether they're notable topics. Subjects have notability, not articles. The quality of an article is no reason to delete it for non-notability - we can always work to improve them instead. Indecent haste to delete by admins hanging on the new creations list is contrary to the whole community ethos.

As to notability, then two of these articles have a claim to notability on the basis of the engine being preserved today, a rarity, thus of at least some concrete notability. We don't have so many surviving and working steam engines that we've a surplus.

Cornwall though is another matter. She was a famous engine in her day, she was so famous when obsolete that she became an extremely rare early preservation, even at a time when we were over-run with engines. If for no other reason, she'd still be notable today even if she'd gone to the scrapper in the '60s. Once again, you're too quick to dive in and speedy an article because you have no idea of its value, and acting in a way that reduces anyone else's opportunity to become involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to raise this at a hiogher level, probably on the Admins review page. The reason given for the speedy deletion was that is did not meet the minimum standards for a Stub. Having looked at the article, I feel this needs to be challenged, as the article was a lot longer than just a few sentences, and it had numerous references. I think this needs closer scruntiny by other admins to determine if the editor that placed the tag can justify his reasons, as I think they are unsound. The issue of notability is a possible justification, but not meeting the requirements for a stub is not. Olana North (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GWR 4900 Class 4942 Maindy Hall

I see that for this one you not only tagged it for speedy deletion, but you went ahead and deleted it anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20080501193932&type=delete A question - When did you tag this for deletion, when did you notify the user's talkopage and when did you actually delete it? This seems like an especially speedy deletion.

I also note that the claimed justification for speedy deletion was "(A1: Not enough context to identify subject)", which is patently untrue for an article that gave both the locomotive's name and serial number. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor who tagged that one for deletion was not I, but rather User:I feel like a tourist. As to context: it was only after examining several other articles created by this editor that I finally deduced that the GWR 4900 was a locomotive. There was nothing in the article I deleted to tell me that. ("Maindy Hall" sounds like a college building.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

so you could have added the phrase, "is a locomotive" to clarify the article. and then, if you chose, nominated it for AfD. DGG (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't reach that conclusion until long after the article was deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The perfect reason not to delete too quickly. Mind if I quote? (smile) DGG (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

On that US-centric basis, am I justified in deleting all the baseball articles, because they make no sense to me? The article has a good name within the naming conventions of its context. "GWR" and "Hall" are an immediate indication as to just what it is by anyone remotely familiar with the area. What's wrong with labelling it as "uncategorized", something that's a positive indication as to the sort of improvements it needs. Once again, don't make claims of lack of subject notability, based on the fluid status of an article's content. Content can be improved - that's what we're here to do. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I just confirm the timing here: you allowed three whole Earth minutes (19:20 to 19:23, AFAICS) for an interested author or newbie creator to apply a hangon template. For a non-controversial, non-damaging article that has been tagged with a now obviously rather controversial "speedy deletion". Just what was the hurry here? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

YouTube links / "promotional look" questions

Is a link to only the trailer on YouTube okay? I've seen that on other wiki's incuding Super High Me.

Also, I'm not sure why it looks promotional? Any suggestions for a change? Thanks again. EndTheDrugWar (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan Youra Studios Inc.

Is there anyway I can get the original work for the article [[Dan Youra Studios Inc. place in my sandbox so I can have a chance to rewrite it show the notability of the organization? Jwsnyder101 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me

I recreated the page on color blind racism, but I am not the original user who made the page. I got rid of the deletion tag saying that I would have the page completed by next thursday. I understand that the previous page for color blind racism was a pos, but I don't plan on making empty promises for 4 months or whatever that guy did. You could at least give me until next friday to delete my page. Especially since the deletion tag said that if I provide a rebuttal to the deletion proposal, the tag would not be reassigned.

I'm still a n00b at wiki however, so if I violated some law please let me know so that I may avoid it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojci028 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Landover Baptist Church needs a revert again, someone made it out to be a real church. - 72.227.27.136 (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Flaming Thunder

Thank you for checking the page out and for the tip on references. I'm still in the process of editing it (probably another couple of days worth to go) now that I have a better idea (thank you to yourself and FCSundae) of what constitutes an acceptable Wikipedia page. I also started a sandbox version for DPGraph, which I haven't done much with yet.

DavidBParker (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

T Power

Hey, I restored T Power because a user on the talk page linked to a BBC review of the artist's music.-Wafulz (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Convoy SC-143

10 minutes into creating this page you want to delete it; you might at least have waited until it was finished!

So it’s “non-notable”; what does that mean, that it’s of no interest to you personally? It’s as notable as all the other articles in the categories in which I’ve placed it; even at the 10 minute stage it would have been that notable. You could have tagged it for improvement, or as a stub; what is the fascination in WP for deleting stuff?

So what happens now; have I got to wait ‘til someone decides my work is of any value? Is it likely to be wiped out while I’m away? I’m bloody annoyed! Xyl 54 (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Sometimes editors create articles by treating Wikipedia as an editor. They don't polish them off-line first, then move them into the visible space all done and dusted. This doesn't mean they're bad articles, bad subjects or bad editors, it just means they're not finished yet. Don't patrol things that are barely seconds old, wait and see if anyone is actually working on the things. There is no earthly reason to kill stuff quite so rapidly.

Maybe they are bad editors. Maybe Wikipedia needs a policy that says, "Don't even think about creating an article until it's almost finished". When Wikipedia has such a policy, then it's time to start slapping editors for working like this, but not before. Maybe you wish that editors did only create things ready-finished (it would simplify some management issues, certainly), but that just isn't the way people are working today. AGF works both ways too - how about assuming a bit of it around article creators who are acting as best they know? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete that article. I put a "prod" tag on it. That gives the creator or others interested five days to bring it up to our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Longer, really, since he can always delete it after four days, after which five days of AFD is required before it gets deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about whether one puts a prod or a speedy onto it, it's about what it's put onto.

The problem here is that you're (quite rightly) trying to kill rubbish pages. Editors are (also quite rightly) creating rubbish pages, because they aren't planning to leave them that way. When it's the first save of a brand-new article, it's just too early to tell. You can't tell at this point whether a well-intentioned editor is beavering away on the rest of the content. Would you have prodded it again how it is now, only a couple of hours later? (I'm sure not - it looks pretty good to me). Would the editor have got it into that state unprodded? Maybe not - not in two hours at least, but I bet they would have done within a few hours.

There is just no reason why new articles that aren't offensive have to be killed immediately on creation. We're not in that sort of rush (abuse, maybe - that's different). Can we change the workflow here so that the "Downright bad" filter happens for new articles, but the "Not bad, but not good either - improve or it goes" filter doesn't get applied to articles that are quite so fresh?

Otherwise we're into a policy that editors really should not treat wikipedia as an editing scratchpad, and shouldn't make stuff even remotely visible until it's near-finished. Now if that's an emergent policy that admins are going to impose, we'd best seeing about making it an obvious policy so that editors know about it, and know how to act within it!

Please remember what a slap in the face it is for a new editor to roll up to wikipedia, write their first article and then be told immediately that it's fit only for deletion (maybe there are 5 days to think about it, but that's what it feels like). We bend over backwards to be "fair" to out-and-out vandals who get all sorts of second-chances (and fourth-chances!) after abusing existing pages, from some notion of "Assume Good Faith" applied to some blatant eeejit who's just replaced an entire page with an mis-spelled insult. Why can't we extend the same courtesy to those genuinely good-faith authors who are just trying to edit a new page, same as they'd edit it at home using a wordprocessor?

AGF is a very good principle. Thinking harder about the last couple of days I really have to apply it to your actions, and try to understand how you're genuinely trying to act towards a best-interest that we both share. However the perception of it from this side of the fence isn't the same thing. Everyone really is trying to work for the best, but there's an emergent behaviour that I think the tools push us into ("New pages" meaning only "really, really, new pages") that sets us into conflict. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Me again: I don’t get a lot of computer time, but I do want to reply:

So no, I’m not a new editor, as my contributions might show; This isn’t the first page I’ve written, but this is the way I write them. I’m on public access; this is the way I work. I have to write it up in Word, over time, then patch it into WP in a couple of hours or so. Does that make me a bad editor?

And no, it wouldn’t have been much different after 2 hours, so a “prod” as you call it, wasn’t much help, except making me madder than hell. You may see it as a prod; it feels like a threat.

But yes, it is a slap in the face.

And "Our standards"?

Xyl 54 (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"I’m on public access; this is the way I work." That's why, thinking more about it, I don't support the hypothetical policy I just described. You certainly ought to be able to work that way. As a little experience soon shows, even "under construction" and "in use" templates are ignored by the creation police.

As another matter, one of sheer desperation for survival amongst the little community of people who create content, sandboxes under your own user page are certainly the way to go. Don't categorize your creations until they're finished either, certainly don't tidy the inbound links from other pages. Maybe it shouldn't be necessary to hide new work away like this (aren't we supposed to collaborate?), but this "instant deletion" problem of admins patrolling new articles means that's the way content creators are currently forced into. Shame we seem to have to find out the hard way, when our work gets trashed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jody Watley Millenium Collection

Hi -- is there a reason you deleted the Millenium collection entry I was building for Jody Watley? (Mirror Ball 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes. The sole author blanked out the page; that is considered a request that the page be deleted, and I fulfilled the author's request. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad -- my fault. Lol. I was trying to clean it up and got messy. My apologies. (Mirror Ball 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Source Citing Question

I linked to a page on Amazon of a book that was the source for the citation. Is it okay to use a book as a source? If yes, how should I do that? Thanks again! - EndTheDrugWar (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of XtremeData

You've deleted my article on XtremeData. Did you read what I wrote in its discussion page? I've provided justification why it's notable, and A7 rule you site says that "important or significant" standard is lower than "notability". Lots of 3rd party coverage and multiple mentions on Wikipedia pages, both several years old, make the subject notable. What don't you agree with? Oxda (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia:NN: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Yes on all counts (do a search for "XtremeData" in Google News). Since most articles are of the type "how great this product is", I thought that from the neutrality perspective it would be best to include that on the discussion page rather than the article itself. About your requirement that the article is written by someone without a COI, it's not supported by Wikipedia:COI. Edits by editors with COI while discouraged, are allowed. I've read the requirements, and believe that the article was proper. And besides, who other than people involved with a company or organization are in a better position to provide accurate information? Oxda (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for XtremeData

An editor has asked for a deletion review of XtremeData. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oxda (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Peninsula Directory and Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. While patrolling CAT:CSD, I removed the {{db-spam}} tag that you added to Olympic Peninsula Directory and Map because I do not believe it meets the criterion. When I looked at the history and saw you were the one that added it, I was kinda curious - as an admin, if you feel it meets the criterion, you can simply delete it. --B (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider this Article (do not delete it) it was about to be wikified.

The original article:

Carlos Nemer Carlos Nemer (Espírito Santo, Brasil) is a university professor at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro-UFRJ) in Industrial Engineering Department (DEI) and at Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). Professor Nemer holds three undergraduate degrees: Civil Engineering major in Environmental Science (Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro-PUC-RJ), Architecture and Urban Design (Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo-Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro-FAU-UFRJ) and Law/Environmental law (Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro-PUC-RJ). He also has two graduate degrees: Master of Science in Systems engineering from Instituto Militar de Engenharia-IME (dissertation topic: a linear programming model related to fleet planing process including a field application for the brazilian truck transportation industry) and a MBA in Corporate Finance at Fundação Getulio Vargas-FGV-RJ. His fields of expertise include:

   * Economic system Engineering;
   * Financial Engineering;
         o Corporate_Finance;
         o Project Finance;
   * Enterprise Application Integration (EAI);
   * Computer Systems applied to Industrial Engineering;
   * Environmental Science;
   * Organizational Innovation.

His personal interests are soccer playing (he pushes for Clube de Regatas do Flamengo (Flamengo Football Club)), Chess, Greek Mythology and Science Fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colatina (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Doctor (comics disambiguation)

A page that has been undeleted as correction of an out of process deletion is never uncontroversial. Your immediate undeletion will assure me you understand your responsibilities as an admin.
--Jerzy•t 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• While i don't intend to continue ignoring your confusion, and while i hate repeating myself:

When one person says something is uncontroversial, and another denies that, are you really confused about which one is right?

--Jerzy•t 04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well. I realized, coming down the stairs this morning, that i'd set a trap for you: when i undeleted the page, i should have had the presence of mind to remove the bogus tag immediately. (I'd like to think that that would have occurred to me a lot earlier, had i not been absorbed in composing a (still unfinished) explanation for the first admin who did what you did. And then, of course, further distracted.)

I also failed to visualize your situation accurately: it matters so seldom, that i forget the edit-history page's spec'n lapse, in so thoroly deprecating the significance of the page's log entries -- which probably should be, as default, interleaved with the edit entries, if only for convenience and clarity. In retrospect, i realize i was being pretty cryptic in treating it as obvious that you'd seen the deln log of the page.

At the moment, i have to gather my climbing gear and keep a gym commitment to my love and a few other refugees from the rain. But i'll offer up the deconfusion i've been promising, probably in the next 12.

Thanks for your patience, or restraint, as the case may be.
--Jerzy•t 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the bog, that your only response to date leads into, turns out to be ever deeper as it is illuminated. This will take longer than i had hoped.
  --Jerzy•t 09:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  

Prof. Carlos Nemer

Hi Orange Mike! You simply deleted an article about a person very known in Rio de Janeiro Brazil. Why did you do this, I am a great admirer of Wikipedia project and I simply do not see any reason for that. I am editing the article and I am going to insert as I was doing new references, so could you please remove the deletion tag? Prof. Carlos Nemer is involved on establishing wikipedia project at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro he is also responsible for some very ongoing international projects with United Nations branch for Industrial Development Organization. Best regards, Carlos Vieira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colatina (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mannerscast Article you deleted

Greetings!

I'm confused. I thought I asserted the importance of my subject. Could you please tell me something like what you'd like to see for me to put in there to avoid speedy deletion next time? Thank you.

Sincerely, Link+Zelda4ever 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Link+Zelda4ever (talk • contribs)

Paulville, Texas

I have just created a new article at Paulville, Texas, and wanted to invite you and a handful of other friends to have first crack at helping to improve it. Cheers! JJB 21:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reseda Beach

How can you think this a speedy A3? Please restore it and send it to prod or something. I dont know enough even to tell if its any good, & I trust your judgement there, but it does not seem empty. And we were getting along so well... :) DGG (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Chic

I would like to know exactly why did you delete my article of Le Chic, please help me because i'm completely impressed. bupasival (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Fantasy Sports

You're an admin, perhaps you can help. You were in the first AfD discussion of this page. You said the page needed drastic cleanup to remain a page on Wiki. Over the last 4 months nothing has been done to fix it. User:RoyalBroil wanted it to stay, but admitted in the first discussion there was not enough material to fix the page to have it stand alone without it looking like an advertisement which it does right now. Now a lot of people think it should stay simply because its notable. But I think someone should act on that merger tag. Its been sitting there for months and nothing has been done. I think the lead should be moved to a section under Yahoo! Sports, and the remainder of the article should be deleted as it is a clear violation of Wiki policy. WP:NOT /Sales Catalog. If you could help that would be great. The discussion is below:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo! Fantasy Sports (3rd nomination) -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ER

Check out my editor review thanks King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DavidBParker at COI noticeboard

Hi, I have reported User:DavidBParker to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, in case you would like to participate in the discussion. silly rabbit (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Le chic

I just want to know why did you delete my article... bupasival (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

First Tuesday

somewhat to my surprise, turned out to have multiple good sources when I looked on google as far as the second screen. I agree it's the sort of article which is often spam, but this time it wasn't. DGG (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to second that, First Tuesday was an important part of the UK dot-com boom of the late '90s, not just in London. In later years it has certainly reduced in importance (frequently alleged to have folded entirely, but that seems incorrect), but it's of considerable notability for historical interest of that period, even if it never met again. Not being part of the US scene doesn't mean that it wasn't notable.

As to any CoI, the content added by those apparently connected is uncontentious as far as I can see - although my personal experience of First Tuesday doesn't go far beyond 2000. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:JudicialWatch

Hi Mike, thanks for blocking this guy. He was repeatedly harassing me over trivial issues. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Meanie

Ah, don't do that, I saw the header on my watchlist script and I thought someone came to yell at me for a declined unblock. X-D Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Fred Toucher

Hey Mike, was hoping I could talk to you about the deletion of this article. The guy is one of two hosts of a very-well known radio show around the Boston area. Further, since the article had a couple sources and a clear assertion of notability, I'm curious as to why you felt he could be deleted under A7. I look forward to your response. GlassCobra 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to view proposed new content

Hi Mike, Can you please view my talk page to see if you think the proposed new information presented is ok to lodge for NetBox blue. I modeled the information and the presentation criteia on some of NetBox Blue's competitors - Ironport and Trend Micro pages to make sure it sounds fair and unbiased. Mickyounger (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jon Balcourt

Hey there, you noted about conflict of interest on my talk page concerning the page I started on a composer. I question my conflict of interest though, simply because I have met him does not mean that necessarily. It's no different than a fan making a page of a composer they idolize. I put no praise on his page, simply facts and information, so I'm not sure where the conflict of interest comes from since I didn't overly praise or add any information that could not be backed up.Theatrgirl (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Elma Electronic not done........

Mike, I've been working on an article for Elma Electronic but you deleted it (even though I put a hangon tag). I've been gathering third party references to the company and I have seen other articles in Wikipedia about other companies of similiar notability with less info (that were not deleted). Before you quote me the COI terms, I do admit I'm involved with the company but I've tried to be very careful to keep the article neutral. Either way, can you give me a copy of the article? Scfe92 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)