User talk:Orangemike

Lebron hired Pinto

Pinto was paid by Lebron - That should be amended. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/LeBron-James-hires-rabbi-to-consult-on-business-?urn=nba-261513

Death Curse Obstfeld

The concept of Pinto death curse & possible involvement in Obstfeld death is worthy of Mention here. Do others agree ? http://www.vosizneias.com/58354/2010/06/21/new-york-claim-israeli-rabbi-put-death-curse-on-obstfeld/ http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/

Article help request

Dear "Orangemike",

I am a chess fan and small contibutor to Wikipedia. A few months ago I made a major update to an article about a chess master and teacher who is very famous in my country, but because of different reasons, his Wikipedia page didn't exist and it has been deleted repeteadly. I was provided with a copy of the article in question which I reformatted and submitted for review. After that, the article was approved by Wikipedia contributors and put live on Wikipedia. Now, a few months later I received a message saying that since the article was previously deleted, it has been deleted again. My question is: Is there any way for this article to go Live again and who I may turn to, in order to request the article to be reviewed and reforematted even more if needed. Here is the link for the article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_%22Tiger%22_Lilov. Thank you for your assistance!

Sincerely,

Dejan Stoynov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesszorro (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article Mirza Faizan

Amazing!!!, Its amazing that administrators of wikipedia take decisions on assumptions for which they themselves are NOT sure!! Just because it "SOUNDS LIKES" something, they are taking decisions to keep or delete an article...lol!! Dude, this single sentence itself is the notability of this guy, who is doing something for the first time in a country and for global aerospace industry. Have a look at these global news: . Moreover, a businessman contribution to global economy itself is his notability, otherwise tell me what is the notability of Bill Gates without mentioning Microsoft?? It appears that you guys are acting under biased judgement and personal prejudice while taking decision to keep or delete an article and you people don't have an answer to my questions. This is the reason why Mr. Tnxman307 has no reply and now are acting on his behalf. However, the world knows Wikipedia is an international community and belongs to everyone, we will keep in posting articles. Good Luck!!

Panasonic KX-T article deletion

Dear Orangemike, I am frustrated that you deleted my contribution; particularly since you have motivated it by a suspicion that this is a commercial product promotion. I have no financial interest in the Panasonic phone systems, other than as a user. I have used these systems in three different small businesses where I have worked, and have generally been very satisfied with them, but I derive no financial benefit from others purchasing them. My reasons for wanting a page about them is twofold: - I would like to have a place where I and other users of these systems can find a quick overview - I think of these (now mostly obsolete along with all other non-VoIP phone systems) as deserving of a place in history like the rest of computer history.

Panasonic / National / Technics / Matsushita is a company with an interesting history, and the division that made these system has an especially interesting history that I would be eager to learn more about.

If this product like is not deserving, how do you justify an article about the "Panasonic JR-200" early PC?

I would like to appeal to you for either a better reason, or restoration of the article which I understand is within your power.

Lpoulsen (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Language like "These systems have a reputation for being among the easiest to set up for simple installations, because the factory setup 'does the right thing'. Like all full-featured business phone systems, they become complex to setup when you want more complex setups." and "One of the features that endeared these systems to their fans was that although Panasonic produced proprietary telephones to provide easy access to the advanced features of the system, it would also work with simple consumer-grade analog telephones. This kept the cost down, since an additional employee could be accommodated with a $15 telephone from the nearest appliance store instead of requiring a $400 proprietary telephone." was grossly unencyclopedic, and had no place here. If you want to create a fansite for Panasonic phone systems, with praise unsourced other than to your personal opinion, then go ahead; but don't put it into Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Triton Productions - Deletion

Hello Orange Mike. Can you please let me know what we'd need to do to restore the page for Triton Productions? All of the images and events have been produced by Triton. I also sent you an email. Thank you. javier velarde (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

After a long discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triton Productions, this article you wrote about a company you (Javier Velarde) own] was deleted, as it is a non-notable local event-management business. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hoax deletion

Hello Mr. Orangemike. Why did you delete the article I created on My Brother, Borat? It included a reference to a NYT article and there are lots of other sources available. I would appreciate a restoration. Alternatively, an article on the director would be okay with a redirect to it. Thank you for your cooperation. Jagshemash! 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredoMurphy (talk • contribs)

I dropped Fredo a note,[1] suggesting he begin article in a sandbox, so that he'd have time to expand and source before moving to mainspace. I also let him know that the My Brother, Borat article, specially after its expansion and sourcing while at AFD, was retained after less than 19 hours as a speedy keep.[2] He should be happy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jagshemash! I am happy, even though it was disappointing to get no response from Orangemike. Thanks. FredoMurphy (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Out My Window

Hi Mike, when you get a moment could you please take another look at Out My Window? While it's still very stubby, I've added some news refs, and though some are newspaper blogs, I think this one in particular, a Toronto Star feature, combined with the others, helps to establish some real-world notability. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of removing the notability tag, as I believe it has ample WP:RS, now. However, please feel free to restore your tag if you still have concerns. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael (Mike) Davey, former Jamaican soccer player

Hi Mike: My name is Brandon Bradshaw and I received a "Unambiguous advertiseing" with the deletion of my article. I have revised the article to reflect a 100% neutral point of view (NPOV). Please advise as to steps I should follow to resubmit this article.

Thanks, Mikelld (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares about his engineering license number! Stop calling the subject "Mike"; don't use language like "Mike’s legendary “exploits” on the soccer field"; format the article properly per our manual of style and citation guidelines. I'll retitle the article ASAP to something more acceptable. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

You helped previously. Users are whitewashing information which all comes from the references they have included in the article ? Pinto is not well known in Israel and became famous after a mysterious death —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 01:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't repeat hearsay, which is all that is. Yworo (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it hearsay ? Its referenced in the sources you post in your articles. Its taken precisely from the articles you present as fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an allegation made by a unidentified "friend of the family" of the deceased. We don't repeat ridiculous anonymous attacks against a living person. Curses don't exist. They don't kill people. Accusing someone of such a thing doesn't make it true. It is, however, defamatory and we don't repeat defamation, especially when it can't possibly be true. It's just a cheap shot by a cowardly accuser who isn't willing to allow their name to be associated with it. Yworo (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There are repeated articles citing it and countless religious figures who claim it to be true. So even without the curse why not include that he became prominent after the mysterious death that sounds like a fair compromise in that case ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is this user still allowed to make edits on the Rabbi Pinto page? It's been found that he uses several accounts (it even says so on his user pages!) in an attempt to mask his bias and has been blocked or reprimanded from those accounts for vandalizing, posting libelous material, and for edit warring (on more than one occasion). The majority of editors/contributors here disagree with practically everything he does. Why is his allowed to continue making changes? If you look at his body of work, this is a trend -- it's not specific to just this page. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Stella McCartney Page

Thank you for your message. I currently work for Stella McCartney and so does my collegue Hkingwu1 who has also tried to update the Stella McCartney page with the Stella McCartney Kids Text. If we are unable to update this section could the Stella McCartney Kids url link be added to the External Links section or could you please advise us on how to update this section correctly. I also noticed that a Ravenscroft32 and a Bigweeboy also edit this page, have you all been contracted by a member of the Stella McCartney Team to do this?

Many thanks 17:07, 30.11.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccajaneherd27 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be doing this. Least of all should you be doing this with the kind of sparkly glitzy advertising crap language which you posted to this article. We don't permit advertising in Wikipedia; the posting of advertising language is treated as a form of vandalism, and blocked just like any other kind of vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Carl Brandon Society

Hi Mike. I'm a bit worried about all these red linked award holders. IMHO, even if it's true, if it can't be proven, they shouldn't be there. --Kudpung (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

They were shortlisted, that's not at issue; they just don't have articles. Sometimes, as has been said, a redlink is an indicator that we need an article. Sometimes they're just obscure nominees (like a couple of the Hugo nominees over the years). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Penrithpanthers

As I suspected, he's claiming no affiliation with the team whatsoever in his unblock request. I'd be inclined to unblock without the username change as long as he makes this clear on his userpage. Thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to insist on a change of username, to PenPanFan or something; otherwise, it's just like any other username which is the name of a collective body. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles on books and authors

Dude, re this, I know how people feel, but I've come across a veritable sea of non-notability. The fact is that there are dozens of books which have articles and aren't notable enough for them. I'm just trying to clean up as much as possible without having to go through deletion discussions. I mean, Wikipedia:Notability (books) sets a pretty high standard. And BTW, the one you reverted is one of the better ones. But it isn't notable unless someone finds a source. And I looked and didn't see even one. I mean seriously, given the sources already given and a google search, do you think it can meet this standard?:

The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4] BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what kind of google-fu you're practicing, but I find discussion of this book and its sequels in Tuck, Nicholls, Searles, Buker: all the standard reference books. There's also at least one critical article in Russian (which I don't read) "классика социальной фантастики или один из первых образцов отечественной героико-социальной фэнтези?", a critical analysis comparing it and the Strugatskys' Hard to be a God! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: the above article may be in Ukrainian, not Russian. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm guessing those are lists of fantasy fiction. But I doubt they do critical analysis etc., which is what we'd need to meet notability. Are you talking about hardcopy sources? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Duh!!!! I guess you are (to put it gently) not acquainted with the standard library resources for SF & Fantasy? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're agreeing with me in saying that such works don't offer critical analysis and that they therefore don't by themselves offer sufficient notability? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not! I'm talking about The Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute and John Grant, which specifically discusses the series' evolution; about Peter Nicholls' The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: An Illustrated A to Z; about Baird Searles' A Reader's Guide to Science Fiction; and about Derek Buker's The Science Fiction and Fantasy Readers' Advisory: The Librarian's Guide to Cyborgs, Aliens, and Sorcerers, which specifically recommends this series in the category of "science-fiction and fantasy blenders". --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you have it right then, as long as they have analysis (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello there

You might notice I took the liberty to edit your comment on the Help desk, to remove the caps lock, so as to not overwhelm or for you to be perceived as "angry" and "yelling". Feel free to revert if you think it was inappropriate of me to do so. Thanks! «CharlieEchoTango» 04:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd done a quick cut-and-paste from a Wikipedia page where that text was in all-caps. No problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz

You don't understand, he's reverting a majority of my edits and given no probable cause. He refuses to listen and tells me to get lost whenever i bring it up. I only want him to stop and leave me alone. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:17 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Discuss the edits on the talk pages of the individual articles. Each article is a separate case. Accusations of hounding against a solid reputable editor are not likely to be heeded; but even the best of us makes errors in specific cases. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

HE KEEPS ERASING THEM. No matter how many times i confront him, he just deletes it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:19 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See my response at the ANI discussion you started (summary: "Good work, Ckatz"). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help and input on the Ralph Nader article. 99.146.24.18 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I know I have the best of time and space

Are you trying to AfD this article, or speedy delete it? Speedy delete seems like the better choice, and I don't see the AfD that was attempted to be added here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reinstating/recreating user page:

Hi Orangemike,

My user handle still shows up in red and this text appears on my user page: "A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

• 13:31, 23 November 2010 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Books2read" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)"

So I'm writing to you to make sure I don't get in any trouble recreating my user page. May I go ahead, and will that turn my user name back to blue from red, which seems to indicate a problem editor?

Thanks much, Books2read (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Books2read

Actually, many editors never bother to create a userpage. But yes, you can certainly create a new userpage. I'd suggest that you include a small-print disclaimer stating that your account is unrelated to any business or website of that name. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike,

Thanks much for the help and advice. Will creating a new user page take the red out of my user handle? I looked up Books2read in the UK, and they appear to have gone out of business, but I'll use a disclaimer anyway, to avoid any future problems.

Books2read (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Books2read

Dani Johnson

Thanks for speedy deletion of this article - as a novice member of the Biography Project its nice to have ones judgement affirmed. - Whats to stop Dani Johnson from recreating the page? I read somewhere in the last few minutes that its been recreated before. Mark^Dask 15:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is a little NaCl. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahaaaa - yaaay. Mark^Dask 15:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

There was edit dispute on Dr. Zakir Naik's page. I am giving the history to you in the following.

---

GorgeCustersSabre reverted the edit and gave the following reasons:

I have been watching this page for several weeks, and have made both edits and reversions (to previous versions) with the aim of strengthening its neutality, yet I'm dismayed by how cavalier with issues of truth, objectivity and bias are both the critics AND devotees of Dr Naik. I do not have either a positive or negative opinion of the man. I just respectfully ask anyone who wants to edit this page to provide evidence for any claims made, and for anyone who wants to delete things they don't like reading to refrain and instead to provide countering information (and source-based evidence).GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I, Guide99 replied to Gorge CustersSabre as follows on discussion page. There was no reply from him except that I received a threat from you. Since you are senior on Wikipedia, I did not understand about it. Actually I was aghast. Please read the following, and kindly let me know. I thought I was trying to protect the neutrality of Wikipedia. I am confused, need your advise.

Dear Mr. Gorge CustersSabre

May be you are truly unaware of Islamic sensitivities, may be not. To let you know, there are three distinct identities of Muslims, viz, Sunnis, Shias and Salafis.

Salafism or Salafi thought or Salafi school of thought was started in Saudi Arabia some time back. Their distinct faith is (1) God has hands, eyes, face and a distinct body and sits on the sky though his shape is not known to people. God is separated from people, sitting alone on the sky and knows people only by his Knowledge. - This belief is in total contrast with Sunni Islam.

Salafis do not believe in blind following of Imams (established Jurists) of Islam. They say that everyone should read Quran and Ahadith and deduce fiqh rules independently. They respect the Imams, but they consider that blind following of Imams is shirk. They started a new school of thought in Islam which is known as Salafi - This belief is in total contrast with Sunni Islam. All Sunni people believe in all 4 Imams of Fiqh and consider it important to follow them if you want to be on the right path of Islam.

Deobandis, who also call themselves Sunnis differ with Barelvi Sunnis in the issue of visiting the graves of Shaikhs. But they also believe in following of Imams as compulsory element of Islam.

Barelvi Sunnis believe visiting of Graves as important aspect of Islam. There are some more issues, which are not needed to be explained here.

Dr. Zakir Naik preaches all basic beliefs of Salafi Islam openly, on TV which is aired free of cost to over 100 countries.

The entire teachings of Dr. Naik on TV, in gatherings and in his writings clearly establish the fact that he follows Salafi Islam. Therefore, it is important that this fact is recognized and appreciated by people who follow Salafi Islam. If you write "Dr. Naik's faith as Sunni Islam", it will be misrepresentation of facts. When he is a scholar of Salafi Islam, how come we say that he is Sunni Scholar. This will be far from the truth and not as per the established rules of Wikipedia. We appreciate Wikipedia for their presentation of facts and their insistence on supporting evidence. Indeed, we are fan of Wikipedia and are very impressed from their network and feel lucky to have a site like Wikipedia on Internet.

The whole life of Dr. Naik is spent in believing and preaching Salafi Islam. Every lecture, every CD you find will show his beliefs very clearly. In such a situation, it is important that his believes are clearly written on his page. If you do not do it, it will be injustice to Dr. Naik, injustice to Wikipedia and misrepresentation of facts for the world.

We hope, we made our point very clear to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guide99 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We will appreciate it very much if you revert back and write "Salafi Islam", in place of "Sunni Islam". It is in the interest of facts and truthfulness of information on Wikipedia.

We are neither follower of Dr. Naik nor his critics. We would like to maintain neutrality. We want factual information about him to be placed on Wikipedia and we hope you agree with us.

Thanks Mr. Gorge CustersSabre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guide99 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Look at other's opinions as well

Hi. If you want a source that says that Zakir Naik is a Salafi, see this: [1] . I have no idea how reliable the CIFIA is, however. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Guide99, I respectfully agree with Jeff5102. There is nothing wrong with stating that Zakir Naik is a Salafi if he is a Salafi, but there is something incorrect in making a statement about a person's faith without a reliable source. If you think the source mentioned by Jeff5102 is reliable (I'm unsure myself), why not add it?GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Stop calling me a vandal. Thank you. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When you stop vandalising, I'll certainly be glad to. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When you stop deleting my comments which made a point and contributed to the discussion?

This is very poor, uncivil, and destructive behavior on your part that really surprises me given your large positive record of helpful edits to articles. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm was couched in such gibberish that it looked like vandalism; it certainly contributed nothing to the discussion. Additionally, you kept removing my remarks without explanation. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I politely ask that we continue this discussion on my talk page rather than yours. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

1978 Holiday In fire

Hi. At first I thought, how on earth is this notable, but I did a little scouting for sources at it is at least written about in several books and is listed by the national fire agency as one of only a few fires which killed 10 or more people here. Granted it is on very weak grounds for notability in its own right, I would recommend an article is created documenting the fires listed on that page with a summary of each one in a general history of hotel fires article in the United States and that this article is merged into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again: "Fire Incidents 1934-2006 in Hotel Fires in the United States as Reported to the NFPA, with Ten or more Fatalities" is so narrow a sieve as to encompass a lot of non-notable fires; I feel this is one of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In your POV maybe. We don't write encyclopedia article based on our views. We write articles based on breadth of sources and coverage. Tons of reliable publications claim the majority of the fires lists by the NFPA to be very notable events which were broadly covered in newspapers and books like the MGM Grand Fire etc. The Holiday Inn fire is one of the least notable if not the least notable in that list granted and is really borderline in the notability stakes but History of hotel fires in the United States once fully written will be perfectly encyclopedic and comprehensive. The hotels covered combined have hundreds of reliable sources, covering in Life magazine etc♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a truly notable fire!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My union local includes the fire/crash rescue specialists at one base here; I respect them and their eternal foe. But this is, as you acknowledge, a very marginal case. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

TfGME

It was suggested by Jezhotwells (talk) I talk to you about the move of TfGME. You moved the page to Transport for Greater Manchester Executive before I had the chance to reply to him about the fact that this is still incorrect, which even the article creator agreed. Could you possibly move this to Transport for Greater Manchester? Also, do you know whether it is ok to move over a redirect in such a fashion as I wanted? Thanks ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orangemike. You have new messages at Shirt58's talk page.
Message added 11:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sir, fyi

Sir, your attention is required here. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia Entry

Dear Orangemike,

I created the page Valeri “Tiger” Lilov on Wikipedia, which you recently deleted and was advised by other Wikipedia contributors to contact you and try to explain you what they told me that this article is actually valid for Wikipedia. Please review our discussion at “Deletion Review” and advise me on how I can get this article back, given the many “accumulated liabilities” its subject has amassed in the eyes of Wiki admins, one of whom is you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_3. Is there any chance for this subject to be published, given that he is a notable chess player and trainer, who is popular around the world with his particular type of effective training, ChessBase DVD publications, major tournament commentaries, etc? In addition, isn’t it biased to judge a chess player’s notability only by his FIDE title? An ELO of 2402 is considered one of an average International Master (IM) rating and the subject has two covered IM norms, meaning he needs one more to become an IM.

Here was the main problem. The first user who started that article obviously did not put it on the “Articles for Creation” section but directly online, and while the article was still under construction, the Wiki admins, simply deleted it. Then a deletion discussion was sparked after debates on why they deleted the unfinished article. It was again deleted, despite the ongoing process of its improvement and after that, no matter what the contents of the article was, someone just came up and deleted it, just because a previous much worse and not following any of Wikipedia’s guidelines version was “deleted thru deletion discussion.” You can check the Valeri Lilov articles history to see for yourself. I think this looks like a loophole. Please, let me know, if you have any constructive solution, so that I or anyone else, doesn’t spend any more time improving this article, if it is doomed for such a reason…

Thank you for your valuable consideration! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Chesszorro|Chesszorro]--Chesszorro (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability Flag

Someone put up a notability flag on the hyperoffice article. I added some new citations. Please see if the flag calls for removal. Thanks Timshear09 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Deletion of User:Narrabase

Mike, a side effect of your blocking of the account User:Narrabase was that the user with a 28-month edit history cannot now change to a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. There, logging into the old username is a requirement. Can you unblock Narrabase long enough so that the user can start the process to change to a new name? Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at this point, with Narrabase/Judy Malloy's history of exclusively self-interested edits. The instructions for asking for an unblock in order to change username are already on her talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the reply. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Block reason for User:92.236.239.4

Hi! You might want to revise the block reason you left on User talk:92.236.239.4. Anon IPs are not usually in violation of account naming policies. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo fixed; thanx for noticing. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Block of FamilyHarvest

Re your block of FamilyHarvest -- obviously you're right on the COI and the spamming, and a block is merited. But I wonder if it's the best approach strategically. As things stood (i.e., without a block), the edits are an obvious problem and thus easy to revert, without any need for good-faith consideration. If the editor simply creates another account with a less obvious username, perhaps the situation will be harder to manage. It's just a suggestion -- I won't mind if you don't agree with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Lets say I accept not listing the other stuff - is the bottom not relevant @all ? Thank you: Rabbi Pinto Prominence: The page is biased and whitewashed. How can he be such a great worldwide leader if the sources cited say the following: The Forward article says http://www.forward.com/articles/128944/#ixzz17UWltlMZ Pinto, an Israeli-born rabbi of Moroccan descent, is little known in the United States. The Haaretz article says: “Pinto is not well known in Israel.” http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/a-rabbi-not-afraid-to-deviate-1.265442

Should these not be added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Note: This user has brought this up at several noticeboards and user talk pages. Netalarm^talk 04:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please restore Smoked Bear article

Would you please restore the Smoked Bear article? It should not be considered for G11 as there are no products being sold. The organization that created Smoked Bear is trying to save millions of animal every year from wild fires. Thank you in advance. TnCom (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Promotion" isn't restricted to commercial ventures selling products. Please take a look at WP:NOBLECAUSE, WP:SPAM, WP:ORG and WP:BFAQ. – ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Saengerfest

I'm in agreement with you. The page needs work - a lot of work. Neglected for a long time. I'll do what I can. Do you have a suggestion for an Infobox template? Maile66 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello there

There was an edit conflict on the page (and I see you indef blocked the user), but here is what I was about to post :

• Editorialteam (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a misleading username; [CharlieEchoTango] 16:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: User is in the category: Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over. HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm more concerned about the conflict of interest, since they appear to be the editorial team of Canadian Business magazine, judging from the pattern of their s.p.a. editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi there; COI or not, I believe the username might lead some unfamiliar users to believe he/she represents Wikipedia. But yes obviously COI would also be a concern. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • They've openly admitted at the Help desk that they work for CB. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand but this is not what I meant. It's like someone who would choose the username Administrator or Editor in chief or whatever misleading name; when they edit it could give the impression to someone unfamiliar checking the history that the wikipedia "editorial team" (doesn't exist but how do I know that if I'm not familiar with WP) was involved in the writing of the article. And they most likely won't check the help desk. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 17:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)