User talk:Orangemike/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Speedy Deletion of Batteries Included

Not a computer user? I'm surprised that you deleted the start of a page for this famous computer retailer and software publisher. Their PaperClip word processor was arguably the first which attained widespread use. Speedy deletion is a speedy way to discourage people from contributing. Lexor1969 (talk)

[edit] Hello

Politics rule has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Castillero Middle School

Hey, I have no idea how to do a wikitable. I left some data on the article. Could anyone who's reading this make the table. will u help me please

[edit] Changes to Pension re: Chile

Mike - my purpose is not to dispute the changes made in Chile, I had simply moved that reference to the countries section of that page, and I've opened up a new page on the Chilean pension system.

The definition of pension should stay general and not reference any particular country or system. Country-specific changes are occurring constantly.

[edit] Okay=

Seems a bit confusing for the causal user but I'll be mindful of that in the future. -Leodmacleod 5:28, 24 Sept 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for the image help

Hi, Orangemike! I'm curious at to where I helped you out - I'd like to know if I did something right :-) east.718 at 09:38, December 19, 2007

[edit] PostBooks Deletion on December 2, 2007

Orangemike, I would like to better understand why you felt the page I recreated was so blatantly advertising. I wanted to get this product in Wikipedia, and I spent a great deal of time researching other companies that are in a similar space. After being deleted once, I went back over again to include assistance in getting factual information here. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallyton (talk • contribs)

[edit] Making History edit

Dear OrangeMike,

I think there has been some kind of misunderstanding concerning my supposedly 'inappropriate' editing of Making History (novel). I merely corrected a couple of grammatical errors, and I certainly made no attempt to deface the article, as your message to me seems to imply. Please write back as soon you get this, I'm sure we simply have our wires crossed. Thank you.

Yours,

User:6afraidof7

Thank you for your quick response, and I shall be more stringent in future.

Yours,

6afraidof7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6afraidof7 (talk • contribs)

[edit] I think you deserve this...

The Orange Barnstar
For your positive wording in here and in so many--omtay38

[edit] "SAE - World Council of Hellenes Abroad" article?

Hi Mike,

I dont understand, why you deleted the following article? 03:23, 14 February 2008 Orangemike deleted "SAE - World Council of Hellenes Abroad".

I have all the rights from the SAE Organisation to publish their text on Wikipedia! Could you please undo the deletion.

Greetings Th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bountos (talk • contribs)

[edit] Orange Mike

Today you murdered my account because you are a fat fucking IWW queer. The reason you gave was that you didn't like my username, which like yours, matches your webpage. Then you started dicking around with other content I posted here, laying warning tags just to be a spiteful faggot. You assholes bypassed all of your own protocol. Therefore, I am fucking all of you from now on. Because you did this to back user IrishGuy, and because my appeals were sabotaged by other whitelisted abusers of nonadmins, you will all be systematically outed at my convenience. Have fun blocking this ip, as it is the ip for an entire library. --contextflexed

[edit] Lyrics

There's lyrics all over Wikipedia. See article on Julie London, for example.

[edit] Deletion of the Bluenose Chapter of the BMW Club of Canada

I started this entry as I was adding content to the Atlantic Motorsport Park entry and thought that it should be included, perhaps after quickly reading the criteria for entry I should have entered it as a redirected page or something, but I've not really gotten the hang of the Wikipedia protocol yet.

I felt the Bluenose BMW Club likely warranted it's our citation separate from the likes of Atlantic Motorsport Park or Westwood, because it isn't just about AMP. Atlantic Motorsport Park is the facility that the club uses to teach young drivers vehicle control through practicing emergency manouvers, car control along with studying and applying the theories and == Great Wall China Adoption ==

Hello, and my apolgies for the lack of communication. This is my first attempt to post any information to Wikipedia. I have rewritten the text for Great Wall China Adoption organziation to be unbiased and unaffiliated, please let me know what parts need more editing. Thank you. - Justin

[edit] Speedy deletion

You really don't have a clue, do you? Remove anything anybody but yourself writes on here... yeah, sure way to help Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighbe (talk • contribs)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Thanks for the copy of the article. I've seen plenty of company articles on Wikipedia with no links (other than website) and minimum info (i.e. no third party references, etc). How did they get past deletion? Are they "grandfathered" in (so to speak)?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.25.139.154 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

oops, forgot to sign Scfe92 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
We try to catch 'em. They can be nominated for deletion at any time by any editor, including you; nobody is "grandfathered in" here. (The continued existence of poor articles does not justify the creation of new poor ones; that argument is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is rejected in deletion discussions.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apples and chondrites are exactly similar

Why won't you remove Olan Mills article? It's a similar company, and a similar article, so it should be removed too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pika62221 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Mike.

Thanks for temporally blocking Pika62221. I have no doubts he is mostly a good editor, but for now i feel he is simply going to far. I hope you won't mind me asking, but would you mind leaving a short block notification on his talk page? I doubt he can find the pointer to WP:POINT at AIV.

Thanks in advance, and of course, thanks in retrospect. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Aaah, slow slow typing me, i see its already done. In that case sorry for the bother with the request, and another thanks for doing so. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BC Progress Board

Mike: the BC Progress Board is analogous to any number of American government agencies. What I'm doing is not promotional, but informational only. Jhrynyshyn (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Planet Living

Hola Mike - see you just deleted our One Planet Living Page for copyright infringement - even though it had a "hang on" in there - have to say I'm a bit upset not just because you just wasted the last hour of my work, but because I run the website that I took the copy from. I love the fact that you're on the ball and how all this works, but Jaysus - could you not wait the 25 minutes I asked for to update our page on our site that you think was supposedly copyright infringed? It's not like I like to waste my time on these things, I've got a planet to save mate. --Stedrayton (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1) For legal reasons, we have to be very proactive on copyright violations. 2) You can't license the use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia; only the copyright owners can do that. 3) This article would probably have been deleted anyway, as being about an non-notable organization; see WP:GROUP. 4) Since you have a relationship with this organization, you probably shouldn't be editing any articles about them anyway, under our restrictions on edits by persons with conflicts of interest

Thanks Mike - I understand where you are coming from. On 1) No problem at all - I think this is very important 2) We are the copyright owners, in fact the guy who wrote the principles is my colleague here. 3) That's interesting - and yea - I can see how that could rate the article for destruction. I checked other pages done about, say WWF, like the 1001 1001_Club - and thought the OPL was an even more valid issue, especially given how we're really messing things up on this lump of rock of ours. 4) Yup - did not want to hide it - but then how do you get stuff up on Wiki for people to read - if the issue not relevant, then 3) applies - if the text is crap, then someone can edit, delete or change (the beauty of wiki), if there are opposing viewpoints (which there must be) bring them on. Anyway Sir - I leave it up to you - I think the shock is more that I specifically made all text on our global web site sharealike - so when the bot caught it I was very dismayed because I'd worked hard at getting the GNU and CC stuff up there. You got any suggestions how I can stop that happening again if someone else decides the OPL is a good and relevant subject? The erroneous copyright is now off the original page on our site. any other advice you can give us (WWF) about making content more shareable would also be very welcome. Appreciate your time to respond. --Stedrayton (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike - you're gentleman. Is good that I learn this stuff and I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to explain the issues and processes. I owe you one Sir. --Stedrayton (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lightning Theif

i was just telling the user not to insult people. Just so you know, I'mOnBase and you're not. 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BC Progress Board

Mike: I appreciate where you're coming from. I, too, do not want Wikipedia to be full of non-notable entries. However, the BC Progress Board is comparable to Statistics Canada, The Conference Board of Canada, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, all of which have entries. It is an invaluable source of economic and social information for the province of B.C. and I see no reason why it should not have its own entry. I am basically doing this is a favor for a friend. Could you please reconsider? Jhrynyshyn (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting stub "Marek Garztecki"

I initiated today an entry on a personality from Poland and your were VERY fast to delete it. Typical American approach - anything outside of Wisconsin (or wherever you live) is obscure. If you google the name "Marek Garztecki" you will get around 4000 hits, all serious information from many fields - politics, music, sociology, journalism. I think all articles start as stubs and are later edited and expanded. Kotoviski (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speedy

With respect to Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC), please dont delete an article Im working on without telling me. I do, you know, rewrite article to eliminate copyvio. Its a notable event, so I would have stubbed it. I'll recreate it myself, no need to undelete, though DGG (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Hello Mike
I know this may be old news to you, but I just know I need to say it to move on.
I don’t want to fall out with you over this (I can see by your userboxes we have stuff in common) and I'm conscious you’ve described this as whingeing, but I'm othered that we’ve not really talked to each other, at least, I don’t feel I’ve explained my concerns or had a reply from you that addresses those concerns.
I’ve followed the discussion, here and there, and I can see I may have to change my editing style (though if editors have to protect their work against admin’s now, maybe it’s time to pack it in). I’m not sure you’ve looked at your own approach at all, except to suggest a policy that backs up your point of view.
My criticism is that you seem overzealous in deleting stuff; (you describe yourself as a deletionist, and are an admin with the power to delete, which seem to me a lot like giving the kid the key to the sweetshop). What is the pressure to delete? Does WP have a capacity problem? I hadn’t heard that. Have we really got too much content? It still has far less than the average provincial library, and everywhere I look there are gaps. I thought an encyclopædia was “a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge”; So there should be loads of stuff of esoteric interest Isn’t it better to improve what’s here, instead?
And my original objection was that you labelled it as "non-notable", where (I would have thought) anyone from the special interest groups that look at these categories would know its notability, and threatened it with deletion. You presumably thought you were prodding me to do better; I just thought I was being threatened with deletion; the whole tenor of the message was towards that, not an encouragement to improve.
I don’t know what else to say; but I needed to say it. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To support Mike here, have you read the new articles feed? It's a mess! The vast Augean flood of sheer garbage is impressive in its volume, if little else. I'm never a WP:Deletionist (not in a world with Moore's Law anyway), but even the most ardent WP:Inclusionist would cheerfully kill the majority of this worthless rubbish. What Mike's doing here is a valuable task that really does need someone to do it.
However what the project needs is new article filtering that works. Clearly there's good stuff, or future good stuff, currently getting killed here as collateral damage. More importantly IMHO is the negative effect this must be having on potential new authors. No-one surely supports that, so how do we fix it? As a fire-fighting survival measure, I'm now much more guarded about my new article creations 8-( As a better fix though, I'd implore the new article patrollers to be a bit more cautious and a lot less rapid-reacting. Kill sins of commission on sight, but let the sins of omission rest for a while first and see if they get better without intervention. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Andy, for this clear and reasoned response, especially given the rather rough start you and I got off to! I am listening to what you say here. (The problem with invoking Moore's Law, of course, is that the new equipment must be paid for. Me, I'm still running my 1999 tangerine iMac.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Thank you for the replies.
No, I hadn’t seen the new pages, and no, I didn’t know we had a server problem; food for thought.Xyl 54 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
PS Good Health! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You could always get yourself A Real Computer and some paint... 8-P Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope to buy a newer real computer soon; but painting one's computer is a tricky business; a professional can get $500 or more for a good job (I'm not kidding). There is no cheap way of tinting the transparent/translucent portions of a computer casing, that I'm aware of.--Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Yes, I'm aware of the history; I live in the Boston area, where the show is aired. The show isn't really much like Stern, to be honest; also, while I apologize for Toucher's behavior, I don't think that makes the deletion any more valid. My roommate is a listener, and he was the one who alerted me to the deletion of this article. Toucher and Rich is a popular radio show around these parts, and the article was well-written and factual. If you disagree, might I suggest we take this to AfD or DRV? GlassCobra 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Mike, I was really hoping we could discuss this. I'll take it to DRV if you don't respond by tomorrow, okay? GlassCobra 03:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NCA

I have had this content rewritten and this is the second time I have tried to get information on this organisation up onto Wikipedia. I do not understand how Wikipedia can delete it if it has been approved by the NCA, the organisation that owns this content in the first place.

KR, (Simon Johnson AMAS (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Regards

No problem Mike :) I am a dialectic, and by erasing the article you only stimulated me to write a new better article with more sources than one. No problem. P.S. Mike I do not want to bother you with problems, but there is this fellow User:Kobra85, he constantly erases 80% of the article I wrote National Liberation War of Macedonia. I spent so many time in the library reading books about the subject and taking photos, but this guy erases 80% of my contribution which is backed by references. He also behaves very incivil. I complained at the admins as did other users before me - this and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Kobra85. Once again, I know it is not ethical to ask you this (first of all as an intellectual I feel ashamed of asking this) but I really do not have any other choice. P.S. Read my version of the article I mentioned and please see that the vandalizing stops. Thanks in advance. --Revizionist (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newton United page deleted :(

Hi Mike, sorry i'm new to this game so apologies if i have done something wrong. Basically last year a friend of mine Joe Horton created a football team called Newton Utd FC which is a big deal for us and i wanted to create a page for the club to allow people to see the history of the club through the years and monitor developments as many other clubs already do. Please let me know your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoffgoal (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoffgoal (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ParetoLogic

Thanks for the heads-up. The article was deleted by the time I had a chance to check. I don't think it's a great loss to the encyclopedia. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C.I.S.

I understand that sir, I do not want to break any guidliens, thats why i havent made the page, if you would please help me make it in a neutral voice, i would appreciate that greatly, thank you sir.King Cangri (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Elitism

I know that, and you know that. But there's a number of heavy-handed admin who don't quite get that distinction. Howa0082 (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Agency (Band) Proposed Deletion

Two reasons why this page should NOT be deleted:

1 - It is NOT an ad of any kind for the band.

2 - If you had bothered to do ANY research on how it COULD be a notable article, you would hove found that Mike Marsh, the drummer of the band, is a member of a notable band, Dashboard Confessional. WP:BAND #6 on Criteria for musicians and ensembles.

HitchhikerGriff (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will work on the wording of the article, and apologies for "abusing" you on your talk page, it's just that this would be the second time that this page would have been deleted.

HitchhikerGriff (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, O.K... I see your point... I'll keep that in mind, and put it to good use... Somehow... But thanks anyway, and I didn't mean to be any sort of tormenting rectal itch... Where DID you come up with that name...

HitchhikerGriff (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art4em (talk · contribs)

Can you try to explain things a little differently? I don't think I'm getting through... (See this.) Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

You're right, I did say that. However, by work what I was referring to was that I had done shows that he has directed before, which is what I call work. Not REALLY work as in a company or as an agent for him or anything. So technically I haven't really "worked" with him, just met him in a theatre experience and had the opportunity to talk with him several times.Theatrgirl (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the quick save bud

You beat me to it with this new guy. My too-long edit summary would have mentioned my trust in the other editors. Of course you vindicated my trust simultaneously. BTW, Paul announced today that The Revolution will move from #7 to #1 in its second week on the NYX bestseller list. I haven't made any use of that yet of course. JJB 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think with the latest on this front? ANI? Other? I could go several ways with the data and would greatly appreciate a directional nudge. JJB 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What would this be called?

Electronic tent. Advertising? Vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESanchez013 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of notes for a freshman communications or television "journalism" class. I'd say "creation of inappropriate articles" and send the author a uw-create1 warning. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Martindanza

I'm on it. You want to start from his earliest contribs and I'll start from the latest? I'm not an admin, so I can't move pages over redirects. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Jasonhalogen

ahehheh. Yeah, my bad on that one. (I edit conflicted with you when I was removing the warnings and apologizing.) I seem to make mistakes sometimes with my vandal reverting. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out. I really appreciate it. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How did this happen?

...this user was blocked yesterday indefinitely. How did he do this? Just wondering... Prashanthns (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he was blocked mere seconds after he vandalized my pages. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...odd, but the edit by him is dated today (13th May) while his block is dated 12th May. (Wondering if I am missing something very obvious, but...)Prashanthns (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm....odd, must be something to do with my time preference settings, perhaps. His edits are dated "Revision as of 01:15, 13 May 2008 (edit) (undo)" while the block is dated "...the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MBisanz talk 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)" for me!Anyways, nothing to be bothered about, I guess!Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...did you see this? Prashanthns (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Datado/Sandbox

I'm disappearing for the day, if you're able to watch this page and help the user, if he's ready to publish it; or, advise him further. Incidentally, Nevada Magazine has been in publication for 70 years, but we don't have an article? Feel free to add it if you care to. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] martindanza blocking

answered on User_talk:Enric_Naval#User:Martindanza_and_his_vandalisms --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sorry!

sorry for reversion of edits on DYBN. i mistook it for vandalism. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nha trang live history muesum

COuld you speedy this. There are no google hits on it -A museum in Vietnam part of the Albert museum in england?? Looks like a hox and meets speedy criteria ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged Orange One. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Trip to Sunderland

Please explain why you reverted the speedy deletion tag placed by this user? I would have been inclined to grant his request to vanish. He didn't formally cite a "right to vanish," but that's what it amounts to, and as long as he's blocked I see no problem with it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you've got a point. The vitriol involved blinded me to this aspect of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Wheezer Bros.

Since you deleted The Wheezer Bros., you might want to check this out as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Amit Choubey

I'm curious about the speedy deletion of the above article. Why was it deleted apparently in the very same minute the author was being told of it being tagged for speed deletion - even if he was online, the author would have had no chance to correct matters? Also, did no one notice the {{prod}} tag giving the author 5 days to fix the article? Astronaut (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Curtisall

Could you have a look please COI with this editor and has recreated same article 3 times thanks. BigDuncTalk 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I seen that it was recreated again today under a different editors name, so I asked DGG to have a look too as he gave a warning last night. BigDuncTalk 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted and a final warning given. I'm watching it & will spot any re-creation. DGG (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Corum Online

you said "Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance" what does that mean? just because you don't think it's important doesnt mean anything, there are over 2 million registered accounts in this game! I had talked to Accounting4Taste about it, and he had helped me get started on it....this is the third time this page has been deleted, and there was no reason for it this time. I had an "under construction" tag on it, i had just made it yesterday and was adding links and references...... can I please get some answers here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellimist91 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry, in my frusturation I forgot to sign my name Ellimist91 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thank you for the info, it IS from a rather reputable company(see Flyff - Fly for Fun, and Rappelz for their more famous games) but until I can get the community to help me, the page will not continue on. Ellimist91 (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historian

Mike, thanks for your thoughts. I suspect, given your misconceptions, that you aren't very interested in my thoughts on who should be called a historian. But if you'd like to know what I really think, please let me know. Tegwarrior (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for reverting Kevindavid on my talk page. That e-mail was a personal one to friends, and one of them forwarded it without asking me permission to a list of people, and it is causing me a great deal of trouble. I don't know how to stop someone who claims to have nothing against me who would post and re-post a personal e-mail that was not addressed to him in the first place.

For the record, I sincerely wanted to encourage people in the communities I interact in, like the Magical and consciousness exploration communities, to get more active in wikipedia. One thing that moved me to act was Pigman's IMO tagging and deletion nomination spree on articles I wrote or heavily edited, mainly occult authors, most of whome have NOT appeared at the events I work on. I do NOT sell anything personally; ACE sells stuff, but I am a volunteer like all other ACE personell and do not profit in any way. I just feel that a small group in this limited-interest field is calling all the shots according to their own biases, and it's time to promote a bigger working group for articles on these topics so they get fairly treated.Rosencomet (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do acknowledge others' notability concerns. For instance, on the last few deletion nominations by Pigman, I discussed my reasons for disagreeing at length on both discussion and deletion nomination pages, and added as much material as I could find to help support notability. But Pigman is a major mover in Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism and a long-time member of the Neopagan community; I'm sure he knows that Nevill Drury (author of over 40 books) and Nicky Scully are notable (or Vivianne Crowley, Chas S. Clifton, etc). I haven't seen authors and recording artists of the caliber of many Pigman has tagged or nominated being questioned on a normal basis. He keeps a watchlist on my articles and sets the bar quite differently when it comes to my work.Rosencomet (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] excessive zeal in deleting the friction, and related talk etc pages

you deleted these pages faster than I can type the explaiation for why the page should be there (which wiki rules permit me) and even before I can conclude editing my text (which is why it didnt have a sig yet .. I just saved it based on having lost an earlier partial edit by your initial edit and delte while I was stil lwriting teh original entry !

I understand wikipedia should not be filled with dross, but over zealouly deleting anything that comes along before the author has even had time to extablish is imho a severe over-reach

i see you have been accused of this kind of thing before, see "Speedy deletion of Amit Choubey"

And now I see you have deleted it again - within a couple of minutes, without any attempt to discuss this or justify your unresosnable action. Sorry but imho you are out of control here

tubenutdave (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Choubey article was restored by me as a stub, because there was some claim of notability for Choubey as a musician. The Friction is a house cover band. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This may sound weird to you, tubenutdave, but at wikipedia we have this belief that people can actually CHANGE over time! i know, sounds odd doesnt it? so when editing, we dont use someones past actions as an argument for why we're right, just like i'm not going to point out the biiig tag on your talk page asking you to be a little less gung-ho and use that to say i'm better than you. Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] world-famous in shanghai

haha, didnt see that! i was just writing up a paragraph from the wikipedia notability guide on musicians/bands to burst his rather gung-ho bubble when you deleted the page. Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Parker

Hello,

You recently deleted the article Daniel Parker with the comment that notability wasn't established. However he is notable on at least two counts. 1. He was the central founder of the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists which includes five different baptist denominations. 2. He was the modern originator of the doctrine of Serpent Seed, a doctrine followed by 1-2 million fringe alter-Christians. I myself have never edited the article in question but I have done som siginficant work on articles related to his doctrines and churches. Would you please consider restoring the article or at least making available the deleted article so that it could be used to recreate a superior article to the one deleted. Thanks Charles Edward 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

LoL, come to think of it I have never read his article. I just now noticed that some of the links to his name had turned red on some pages I watch. Thanks for the info. Perhaps I will try to write an article for him. Charles Edward 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the seed of one is already present in Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Styles section in Martin Luther King, Jr.

Thanks, I thought the argument was about use of Reverend. Completely missed the header "Styles"; that is, simply thought it was referring to changes in the way people addressed King. Just one more way to learn by working on Wikipedia. This is great for people with curiosity!--Parkwells (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Mike - thank you for explaining the policies and positions of Wikipedia. My first days of Wikipedia article writing have been ones filled with learning. Rolah (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another pinoybandwagon sock

I warned User:Raleldude about moving radio station names out of their call names[1] so he can't say that he wasn't warned. I see that in his first page move he used on his edit summary an argument that he saw used somewhere else[2]. I remember having seen that same wording on other place. I doubt that this person can explain the argument himself, and, from past experience, I believe that he is just parroting something he read.

What really annoys me from this guy is that he could actually make some really useful stuff if he stopped doing hoaxes, trying to make a separate article for every old closed radio station, and paid more attention to what he gets said by other users.

P.D.: Man, I was going to strike out all the chat on the talk pag of DWLS, but you arrived first :) [3] --Enric Naval (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Damn, he has created *another* sock at User:Extraflavor, look at his contribs --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Broadcasting in WP:NC

It only said what should be appropriate for the Radio Stations in North America, but not in the Philippines. Extraflavor (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Radio and television stations in countries where call signs are customarily used, such as North America, should always be titled with the official call sign as assigned by that country's regulatory authority." The Philippines assigns unique call signs to all stations. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Framing Hanley

Judging by this, I'm wondering if a pinch of salt is in order? Regards, WilliamH (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amit Choubey

Hello, I saw your proposed deletion on Amit Choubey as I was patrolling and I did support it. However I'm confused, it looks like you also created the page and proposed its deletion at the same time. I understand that it existed previously and had spam in it, but if it was deleted for that purpose why not let it stay deleted? I don't think a proposed deletion prevents an article from being recreated, or that it even makes it difficult, although if you had done a AfD that would in fact prevent it from being recreated. I'm just wondering why you did that, I assume you have a really good reason that I'm totally ignorant of and I'd appreciate being enlightened. Thanks! -- Atamachat 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The original was deleted, as it was clearly spam. An editor protested this deletion, arguing that the subject may well be notable, and I compromised in the interest of assuming good faith and "not biting the newby" by creating the stubbiest of stubs. I then prodded it in order to give the article's advocate(s) a time limit by the end of which, if they could not find solid reliable sources, the stub would also be deleted. I've been accused of overzealous deletionism, and I'm trying to find some solid ground here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just curious. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. -- Atamachat 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract

Would it be possible to have this page undeleted and userfied? Editor is continuing to be disruptive and it would be easier to refile if I could start with the one I already wrote up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Shelby Dillard story

Its a factual story that needs telling so that others may avoid making the same mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokeyjones69 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of Original Software page

I worked hard on making sure that this software company that has made significant contributions to the software testing space and is an IBM and Oracle partner was clearly represented but without putting any marketing info up. I stripped the article down to bare, referenceable facts and now it gets deleted? you should then go delete the Segue Software page as well. It is also included in the Software Testing portal and also has a bare bones site about it. Here is the Segue Software page for your reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segue_Software First I am told it sounds to markety, then you say it isn't significant? I understand the issue of conflict of interest, but I didn't put any opinion into the article, just the facts. Can you please tell me what I need to do to get the Original Software page up without having it deleted? thanks Teune (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already responded to this on your talk page (two or three messages ago). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please also delete User:SomeUsr/Calendar

Hey mike :-) ,

you may also please delete User:SomeUsr/Calendar . this was my calendar template. thx in advance SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 14:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Diamond (lawyer)

Sorry Orange, but you're wrong about the way you're changing the citations, and I am reverting it. Again. Look at the law page, and trust a lawyer to know how to format things properly. I also have no idea why you are putting these tags up. I simply have no idea what you have in mind about wikifying the page, and what you feel is missing. If you want to make suggestions, feel free to go to the talk page. Wikidea 09:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Orange, you've melted my heart with your peaceful path: I wasn't saying you were frivolous at all; but the Blue Book is American - as I can see, from your old uni. Believe or not, the world does not always do the same as Americans! It wasn't me who keeps putting the self promoting stuff back. It's these other non-registered users. Wikidea 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, you're really stubborn! I can't think why you wouldn't believe what I say. Let me make it a bit more clear. You're wrong, and if you spent half a second clicking on any of the links on the end of the cases that I put up on that page you would see why. Wikidea 16:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Orange, the links in the page for the cases! There are inline citations: e.g. the name of the case goes like this: McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs [2008] EWCA 999 - and on that last bit I've usually put in an external link to the text of the judgment. In those judgments you can see that this is the way we (and every other English speaking country in the world, bar America) cites cases!! Also, again, look how I wrote the law page. You can see in the footnotes I put the American cases in the American style, and English cases in the English style. Can I help you in any other way? Wikidea 17:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that all sounds fine. As I said before the 'honourifics' are being reinserted by this unregistered guy in Cambridge. And yes, get rid of the see also section. I just kind of put one in out of habit when I make pages. For the Administrative Court, it's a wing of the England and Wales High Court (EWHC: which is what goes on the citation), under the Queen's Bench wing; so yes I think you've got the right page there; this is another one: High Court of Justice. :) Wikidea 17:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images in Israel

Hi somebody is under the impression wikipedia is the commons and unbelievably has created severla categories chielfy for images. Could you take the necessary action to sort out Category:Images of cities in Israel and the sub cats.

There is also categories such as Category: Images of cities in the United Kingdom and Category:Images of cities in the United States. They seem pointless to me when we have thousands of images in the commons like this. By all means take them to CFD and get some views but I am certain they are against guidelines cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of AMAX Engineering Corporation

I'm pretty sure I added a notice saying that the article is still in construction, so why was it deleted the day after? I was currently still working on it and thought that it won't be deleted when it's still in progress. Also, I'm not trying to promote or advertise this company, but using it as a resource tool for online users to find out what kind of company it is. I don't think I was currently wording it in a way where I'm trying to dazzle this company to buy it's product. I'm still citing the other resources that I found through 3rd party sites that I thought would make the article more legit.

I would really wish that you can restore this page, so I can continue to work on it and meet the requirements AFTER the article is completed. Amaxhelen (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] titsup.com

I initially thought you were replying to me on User:Gurubrahma's talk page, which made me very confused, because I was the one who deleted the article. JIP | Talk 16:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Burger Shop

The original deletion was for advertising, not non-notability. My version was not advertising. Electricbassguy (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I added two links. Electricbassguy (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Notability

hello. the article i created even though is about a class in school is a reference of the program to help/guide students about what the program is about. it is a simple info page. is there something wrong with that? can i do/add anything else to fic it? :( thanks. Imcb1925 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel Dzama

I am finding it impossible to log a complaint about the removal of my edits on Marcel Dzama's page. I am removing the commercial work he has done for him as he does not consider it a part of his artistic career. Why do they keep getting put back? There is no reason to advertise for record companies on his Wikipedia page and to include a few but not all is incorrect and unprofessional. Please respond to me here. Thank you and I trust that you will take this into valid consideration so I don't have to keep coming back here. I appreciate that you do not block my IP address either as my issue is with the content of the page and I am clearly not vandalizing it. Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serviceinformation (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am finding it impossible to log a complaint about the removal of my edits on Marcel Dzama's page. I am removing the commercial work he has done for him as he does not consider it a part of his artistic career. Why do they keep getting put back? There is no reason to advertise for record companies on his Wikipedia page and to include a few but not all is incorrect and unprofessional. Please respond to me here. Thank you and I trust that you will take this into valid consideration so I don't have to keep coming back here. I appreciate that you do not block my IP address either as my issue is with the content of the page and I am clearly not vandalizing it. Kind regards, S.I. Serviceinformation (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] titsup.com

WRT your msg on my talkpage, I dunno how the article fails WP:WEB as all the early contributions were on the slang term and not on a particular website. The solution is revert rather than delete and it can't be done unless the article is restored. --Gurubrahma (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Workscited4u.com

I'm curious as to why you saw fit to delete this page. Notability was asserted by a host of external references to the website itself, and by the assertion that the site was the first to include the "Autocite feature." Your input into this matter is requested Stanley011 (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a response as to why you deleted this page. Note that prodding another article that I created does not count as a response. Stanley011 (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Florida Youth Orchestra

Orange Mike, I received your TALK that you had pulled my page for the Florida Youth Orchestra. Respectfully, I'd like some clear direction on how to make this entry acceptable for post. I have read and followed the directions provided by My First Page. I see nothing about the entry that is not pure fact. I have carefully avoided any subjective or effusive terms that could be construed as non-objective. I fail to see any differentation between the content of my page for the Florida Youth Orchestra and the pages that are in exisitence currently posted on Wikipedia for other Youth Orchestras. Your input would be most helpful. I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayauteur (talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Diamond (lawyer)

Definitely just a crank lawyer, but a BIG crank lawyer who has been having a field day under new religious discrimination laws! The trouble is, he keeps on losing. His own website does not mention this, and I think it's really important and notable that this man's work is explained accurately and impartially. Wikidea 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I will endeavour to find sources that conform to Wikipedia's requirements in future. Hopefully, thelawer.com is acceptable? --TheLogster (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removing of external links in the page AtGentive Project

Dear Orange Mike, Can you let me know why you have removed two important external links in the page AtGentive Project?

These two links where complementing the official project web page by providing a reference to a Wiki in which you had much richer information about the project, and the second about a collection of resources related to attention that collected in this project and that we wanted to share with others.

Now as an external link, you just have the official page, which is as usual in such a case, something relatively boring. In particular you have removed the link to description that appeared to be much more valuable in term of knowledge to my opinion.

Thanks, Nabeth (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Orange Mike. I have to still to learn more about Wikipedia as an editor of content. I try to read the rules, but they are so many that it becomes complicate. Therefore I try to do both: read the rules and publish. Concerning the two extrenal links that I provided, they were relatively reliable sources of valuable, verifiable additional information, since they were generated as part of a research project. The principle that drives me is always if the knowledge I provide is useful. I perfectly understand this idea of keeping Wikipedia in line with the orginal role, and for instance not transforming it into a linkfarm (which in some case can be useful as it was the case for the virtual library).

To finish, I would like to ask you if you have some information and other advice related to another project (a NoE) I am involved named FIDIS. As part of this project which consist in reputable experts in the domain of Identity, we would like to find a way for our consortium to contribute in Wikipedia. As you may know, the participation of Academic in Wikipedia is not particularly good (article: Assessing the Value of Cooperation in Wikipedia), and I am trying to find the way to make this process valuable for us (academic prefer usually to spend their time writing articles than adding Wikipedia content). I have tried to search in Wikipedia, and I have come to the idea of a WikiProject. WikiProject_Identity_in_the_Information_Society. Does it seems to you a good approach, or do you believe there are better ways to proceed? Thank you in advance for your answer (I just want to know if you are aware of a better alternative for what we intend to do). Thierry Nabeth (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Orange Mike for your answer on my talk page. I also have given you an answer in this talk page (not clear what is the most adequate place to answer). I hope it will give you clarification. In particular, I hope it will make clear that what is intended to do is NOT original research. Thierry Nabeth (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool down blocks

Please see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks, which says "Brief blocks for the sole purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." Without opinion as to whether or not Ncmvocalist's original edits were correct or whether a block was justified in general, a "cool down block" is never appropriate. My unsolicited advice as a not at all uninvolved admin is to consider either removing the block or at least modifying your text to better express what behaviors the block was designed to prevent. Thanks. --B (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on further review, I think it was a very good and necessary block, just calling it a "cool down block" is a bad idea. --B (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked per the unblock reqiuest, since the user has agreed not to act disruptively in the future, and I'm going to assume good faith in that. Hiding T 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article on common defenition use of "Monotone"

The deletion log showed you as pulling this stub Monotone (common) that I started. I'd like to know how to proceed to convince you to revert this. I fail to see why this topic that companies spend a lot of effort dealing with, is mentioned as the focus of many Osha effords, merrits entire days and weeks in seminars on public speaking and education/training is "patent nonsense". None of the people above are dealing with mathematics, geometry, economics, voting, and they are not talking about music of only one note either. There's way more to the topic than a dictionary definition. : Maybe your opinion arose from a difference on view how Wikipedia articles should be created. I liken the process to product development. No one is asked to put a finished product on the table including references to all aplicable standards. What you do is throw out ideas and get experts in each area to flesh out details, then you see if it flies. I don't have all the answers, but I think that creating a page and asking the experts with access to all those "members only" articles to supply details, is a way to make information on this topic accessible to those looking to wikipedia for information. The label (common) may also have contributed to having the stub classified as "nonsense", however I'm not sure what label would be better suited. I'm open to suggestions. Labeling it (psychology) might not jibe with the experts' system of labeling {ergonomics) would not include the other 2 uses outlined above, which are closely related. Although each might merit it's separate page later on, I feel we should keep them together till the topics have grown to a size warranting that step, rather than having 3 stubs (where even having one is now being disputed)  : I hope i have managed to present my arguments in a reasonable way, although I admit to being quite incensed by that labeling and process, as you might have gathered if you took the trouble to read the talk page. Having people at companies spend lots of time in meetings and gathering on a certain topic might not necessarily mean it isn't "patent nonsense" (after all we pay lots of people big salaries with little to show for it :-) it would however be nice to have a page to see what they are up to.  : Looking forward to having the sub undeleted or your comments as to why not. Lisa4edit (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How come you think that what that article tried to get the word "to mean something it doesn't"??? as I tried to explain above, none of the existing articles covers some of the most "common" usages of "Monotone". Or would you kindly explain how the meaning used by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work or Occupational Safety and Health Administration or the other 2 usages are in any way covered by any of the existing articles. I'm willing to listen to arguments, but I will resist having an article deleted just because someone "feels" that it's not useful to them. I don't "feel" anything in Monotone (software) is going to help me explain what makes a speech monotonous. Monotone class theorem is not going to help figure out how to change existing jobs to meet new work safety requirements. Monotone preferences will not aid me in creating exercises that are not monotonous while being beneficially repetitive. I'd be most interested what your "feeling" is based on, exactly what did you think in the suggested examples does not mean "monotone"? As I also explained I don't have all the answers, but I certainly have the questions and I know that none of the wikipedia articles to date cover them and I equally know that there are answers out there because otherwise an amazing number of people would waste their working life on "patent nonsense that is forced to mean something it doesn't mean." --Lisa4edit (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

...for the constant csd-checking. Every time i nominate something i seem to check my watchlist and find you've deleted it within a couple of minutes :). Ironholds (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Western Carolina University Academic Programs". What about a listing of college majors/minors is blatant advertising ? Glovejr (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
butting in here, the college has a website, I think. There's general agreement that this sort of list is not encyclopedic content, certainly not by itself. It could have been speedied equally on other grounds, such as being a list of links and nothing more. I'm much more reluctant than OM to speedy-delete articles, but I think it a good enough speedy. There is really zero chance of making an acceptable article out of it. DGG (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)