User talk:Orangemike

Speedy deletion of File:1930s photo of the foreshore above Jeffrey Street 001 001004.jpg

hello Orangemike

Apologies if I missed earlier warnings, or if the file was incorrectly tagged however can I check please your speedy deletion of this photograph. The photograph was important to the article. The reference citation in the article on Jeffrey Street was as follows and my recollection is that a similar citation was present on the photo page:

"View to St. Aloysius' College above foreshores of Kirribilli" (photo). 1 copyprint; b&w; 204 x 254 mm, This photograph shows construction on foreshores of Kirribilli above Jeffrey Street. Above the foreshores is St. Aloysius; College incorprating Dr. Cox's home. Whilst barely visible above the trees is the tower of Star of the Sea Church. The homes Greencliffe and Craiglea are also visible on the right hand side above M. Steel boatshed. Jeffrey Street Wharf and Jeffrey Street: North Sydney Council, original publisher unknown. 1930s. Retrieved 27 June 2010. Image 001\001004

The file appears on the Local Government website and the source attributes the photo to "c 1930s". I thought (mistakenly) that all of the correct tags has been used both in the article and also on the photo page. I refer also to the Australian Copyright Council which states that in Australia Copyright has expired in photos taken prior to 1 January 1955. This photograph is therefore approximately 20 years out of copyright. Refer to the copyright regulation here.

<http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/browse-by-what-you-do/photographers/>

Can I seek your advice please as to how to reverse this or what additional "public domain" style tag you feel was missing which should have been present on this photo to cover any other countries copyright laws etc? This photo has been on this article for almost four (4) years and this is the first time that the PD status / copyright of these very old photos has been raised as an issue.

Is my deleted article stored in the Wikipedia database?

I was told my article about Claudia Caporal was deleted because it was biased and I was too "close" to her to be able to write her article. Is there a way to rescue the writing I did for it so that I may then edit it to an appropriate stage for publishing? Thank you. KatieLee92 (talk)

Periodic general health checks and the Medcan Clinic

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Medcan Clinic § Discussion, part 2.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmccloud (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 December 2013

Judge Alonzo Conant jpg deletion by Ronhjones

Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Second consideration appreciated on Talk:Gregor Collins

Hi, Orange Mike, or other user - this is a request for a second look ie a consideration in deleting the "Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable" note that has been on the Gregor Collins article since September of 2013. Reliable sources and additional, validated wiki links (including the recently approved article Goodbye Promise) have been provided in the interim, proving it a worthy candidate for no flags. I have no reason to be untruthful that this article is indeed associated with me but that is in no way an indication it is a puff piece or autobiographical piece, nor should it not be considered just as neutral as any other entry. If for some reason it's still considered flag-worthy I'd appreciate an updated explanation and what needs to be secured to have it fully approved. Thanks for your time. Gregorcollins (talk)

Some words on "ESNA European Higher Education News"

I removed the issues from the top of the page. After spending a few weeks gradually editing this article, I believe the tone is much more neutral, many references and links have been added to integrate it, and it relies much less on primary sources. If there is anything left to be improved, please let me know. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesfearnley (talk • contribs)

You're Invited!

{{WPW Referral}}

Luv Ya page

Hello Orangemike I appreciate your advice, but just to clarify, Paloma Faith is not a minor performer. Despite not being regarded as a phenomenon like Amy Winehouse or Adele she is more popular than some may realise, and even so more financially successful than some realise. I believe if my article is up to the standard of Wikipedia, my article will be accepted. Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandidLibraryEditors (talk • contribs)

(Request Article) Draft:Restaurant City

Hi @Orangemike: I made a draft article Draft:Restaurant City, can you take a look, Thanks in advance. Mayamaya7 Poke! 09:13 AM, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

To Orangemike

To Orangemike: This is in response to your following message: "I have no problem with your re-name or with you being unblocked; but you still don't seem to understand that "giving them a kind of free ad, as I do with Greenpeace in many u-names" is exactly what we forbid people from doing, for exactly the reason that you wanted to do it. Wikipedia does not exist and will not be exploited to support your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. As it happens, I support Greenpeace's causes, but have been nauseated by the credulity of well-meaning white folks in the area of fakelore and New Age woo-woo."

I didn´t ask for your opinion about my new u-name, and find your presumption as an editor at an open source site as inappropriate and tell-tale of the mishandling of this Legends of Rainbow Warrior by you, clearly, and all the editors weighing in so far. Sadly for you, my new name also gives Gpeace a nod, and wiki´s "forbidding" only emerged because you jumped like a cat at a car backfire. Nice job, but you´re still hung up on names like no scholar, and rather undiscerning about the substantive points I´ve been making. Thus, as for "exploitation," it appears that the off-target crusade here belong to you and your supporting editors, since "fakelore" is not itself an absolute concept that conforms merely to your cliques´ apparent supposed "non-anti-but really incorruptible pro-Native" stance, oversimplified, and rather overwrought lack of any significant scholarly source back up in using the term. Anthropology, BTW, is an academic discipline. I mentioned my academic credentials, modest but genuine and hardly hotheaded, as I asserted the value of acknowledging possible or likely Native Am elements is because of my longstanding scholarly interests. I suggest you review my comments to Doug W, including about Santa Claus, because as much analysis as I touched on from the real St. Nick of history to Santa Claus of US commercialism is the level of insight I´m presenting in using scholars I found in a jiffy, Geertz and Nabokov ed/Apache prophecy to anchor the hole in your all´s conceptual blind spot squeezing "fakelore" like I´m not the revolutionary here. I moved to Brazil from NYC, "OM," and "advertise like an activist," with my tag for a group called "MST," not just Grnpc. In that and my scholarship, I would never disrespect someone like you unrestrainedly and in abject travesty, have me. At an OS, no less. Sad times, indeed. But look at my ship passing in the night supporting BLM, RLM, and ALM, because it´s all human rights reflecting religious traditions, and means that Native Ams like Black Elk matter as much as Joseph Campbell, and layers of issues require SKILLED analysis by scholarly types with integrity, not abusing and confusing lightweight authority.

BTW, I´m an independent scholar, have no stake in your folly, and will just pass it along to help remind people that some wiki excellence is not to be confused with its varying quality.GrnpcmstMark (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

1. You clearly still don't get it: usernames are not places to advertise a cause, even a good one. Your new pick makes it clear that it's Mark, not a Greenpeace unit, doing the edits. That's how we like it.

2. "Fakelore" is a pop term for a pop phenomenon. Even Jove nods; many folks suspect that some of the "Cherokee mythology" in our beloved Mooney is actually from Greek or Hebrew sources which by Mooney's time had contaminated the well.

3. My first anthropology training was at a little place called the University of Chicago, and my first class was in Native American culture. But one of the things I was taught, was that even native informants can be unreliable, and that you need to check and re-check your sources, especially for extraordinary claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see ....

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Re:Rename of BrandSherpas

I lack tools to control him. This user requested a rename and explained his motive for that. I am not able to read the article you've linked here, but if you say that he violates our policies, it is your decision to block or unblock him. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia. SwiftestCat (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yum! Looks much tastier than the stale poppy-seed rolls and cold cuts on which I'm lunching alone.... --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you intend to do this?

[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't often report death threats, so maybe I got a little flustered. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a common event for me either. The good news is that COVID will likely get me before the IP has a chance to make good on his threat. Agricolae (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Orangemike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I've responded to the matter you emailed me over. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Death threats?

I have just found that there was something to do with death threats?? I don't know if that is about me but I certainly have not put death threats in edits. All I have done is mentioned a concern that adding Salafism to the khawaraji could put innocent Muslims lives in danger because someone else reading Wikipedia could harm innocent people who could have something against Muslims. I have to put that because Wikipedia needs to be aware of other people, I am a Safeguarding officer so I am letting Wikipedia know to be careful how information could affect other people IrishDonovan (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It was not about Islam, it was about the O'Donovan family article. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tucker Carlson on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hassan Ahmad Khalil draft

Hello Orangemike, I hope you're well. You recently deleted my draft Hassan Ahmad Khalil and I would like to submit a revised version. I was told to contact you for tips and notes on how to make it approvable. I assure you i am not trying to promote the subject, but him being an economist makes it natural to highlight his economic views. Please advise, thanks.Ziad.awwad (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, I just left some advice on your talk page. You would need to discard the crap you gave us before; nothing sourced to YouTube, LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook, or LiveJournal. If he is genuinely notable, we need substantial coverage of him, sourced to reliable sources like The Economist, Reuters, Al Jazeera English, Der Spiegel, Haaretz, The Wall Street Journal and the like. Remember: we don't care what the subjects says about themselves; we care what impartial third-party reliable sources have to say about the subjects. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Quantum radar

What do you make of the COI claims on that one? Other than it being a content dispute?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Outside of my field; but S-ro "I can't remember to sign my posts" doesn't seem to understand how broadly we define COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for that JarrahTree 12:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of CATalyst

Why did you speedy delete Conservation CATalyst? This is my first page and I am trying to make it fix my mistakes. I am hoping you can revert it, so I can revise this and did not waste hours making this page. Please let me know ASAP how I can fix this page for this organization, they study my favorite cat the caracal and I hope to make several more pages. ALLBN (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"(talk page reader)@ALLBN: It was deleted under G11 which means the page is advertising/promoting a certain company/organization. All pages on Wikipedia must be written in a Neutral point of view. CompassOwl (talk to me!) 22:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Can it please be reinstated so I can fix it? I had over 30 independent sources and I took the language right from these sources. How do I petition to get it back so I can fix the page instead of just having it deleted? I spent a lot of time on this. Please assist. ALLBN (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

See, that's your problem right there. You took language from sources who seek to promote, praise and advance the organization and its work. Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause, however noble you (or I) may perceive it to be. The old version was not salvageable. We need information stated in plain, undramatic prose, simply stating who they are and what they do, and sourced to impartial, reliable third-party sources rather than to advocates and fans. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Orangemike, maybe you could copy some sections from the original that are NPOV and giving ALLBN something to get started again? Because it seems like they did spent a lot of effort on it. Cheers, CompassOwl (talk to me!) 23:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you CompassOwl! I greatly appreciate your guidance and assistance! Orangemike, I have revised the page in my sandbox with neutral language and 41 independent citations. If you could please revert the deletion I can publish it and you can tell me if it is acceptable or if there is anything else that needs to be changed. I believe it fits all qualifications now with minor adjustments. If you are unwilling to do so, could you please direct me to how I can petition formally for this? Although, I would prefer to work with you directly on this. Thank you for your time.