User talk:Orangemike

This is Orangemike's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Auto-archiving period: 16 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

This page has archives. Sections older than 16 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present.

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Hi there. I'd like to know why this page got deleted so quickly even when I put the hangon tag on it. I was in the process of adding it, and had to answer a call at work. There is a valid body of experience here. I had intended it to look like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Praagh but you yanked it far too quickly for me to build it to that level. I request that it be undeleted so I can improve it to academic standards. user:curtisall 13:37, 13 May 2008 (EST)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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! -- Atama^chat 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, I was just curious. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. -- Atama^chat 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

While I personally support the deletion, you speedied something that had earlier an inconclusive AfD, so that may cause some sparks to fly. Scott.wheeler (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good to me. Logster's edits seem suspicious to me too... · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd say hello. Thanks for helping me out a bit, one day I'll submit somthing you can't delete lol. Nice to know how fast this comunity works :) Nice to meet you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinkaz (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last year a good friend of mine and I had a class with a professor that went on and on about a company that he worked with through the university. My friend came on to Wikipedia and noticed the company did not have a page so he started researching it further because it seemed interesting. We then both talked to the prof. outside of class, and got more information. I guess my friend tried to create a wikipedia page for Plastic Ingenuity, but it was deleted within a day because of a lack of significance. He and I looked at what was presented, and we understand that there was a lack of references present, and that the information should have been organized differently. He and I have been working on revisions, and have a great new page in our opinions, so I was just asking you for some advice to make sure it doesnt happen again. Any help you could give us would be greatly appreciated. Allstar11

Hi. You voted twice here. In addition, in your second "delete" vote you proposed to "redirect". So I'm a bit confused with your proposal?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also sorry from my side; I should have realized that this name sounds like a URL. So fortunately everything ended up fine. :-) I just requested to have my name changed to Timosch_xyz on WP:CHU. PS: I had the chance to enjoy beautiful Milwaukee half a year ago. - Timosch.de (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike what are your thoughts on this article. WHy do we need a biography of a gameshow contestant?? SHouldn't it be merged into a section in the main articles summarizing the shows successful contestants?? Probably some people will think this is what wikipedia is about, but an encyclopedia in my view should not have biogrpahical articles on people like this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move the Information of the Radio Station from the Callsign to its Name and I had a very hard time with it because some users undid what I did. I have nothing to do, but to give up those things. Now, I finally accept those Radio Naming Conventions. 203.87.181.218 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Help me please?

I work for KPHX. So I am not supposed to edit it...

Well, Neither is KingDaevid, who has a show on here and he made this edit recently;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPHX_%28AM%29&curid=4535092&diff=215467357&oldid=212200503

Could you revert it for me please and make any other changes you think are appropriate?

Thanks so much!!!!

Direct Action Gets Results.

--BenBurch (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Hdayejr and you have no business running your mouth when you only have knowledge of his war with Steve here last summer. You only know that much and nothing more. Makes you look just a bit ignorant. Get lost.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Holderowner (talk • contribs) — Holderowner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

From that list of edits it would appear to me that this person *is* the author the article is about - new press mentions are added so regularly that only the author could know about them. I think I am going to watch that article like a hawk, and if you have time, I'd wish you would too. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause the line after your signature told me to do so! How's it going? --UWMSports (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely! I know I'll find you!!! How often you there? --UWMSports (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I've already left for the day today, but I'll definitely have to find you! A snack sounds good.--UWMSports (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on the William Wasz article. He's dead, so BLP doesn't strictly apply, but with no reliable sources, lots of derogatory info and dubious notability, the page was still an embarrassment to the project. David in DC (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was placing the template on certain articles that have some relationship with fan fiction. It is true that some of them are not related 100%. Yet, I beleive that if there is some aspect of the article that could be an interest to the WikiProject Fan Fiction it ought to be tagged as being part of the project. Take Michael Jordan for example. He is part of the WikiProject for baseball, but only spent a year in the minors a baseball player. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, orange mike, uh... why did you delete the article? I mean, how come the other stuff that i read made it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claymore007 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! I gained them after being exposed to the radiation from a meteorite of pure Vandalium! - Vianello (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- you're doing a great job. I was looking today for the article on Mohamed Abdelwahab Abdelfattah, on which I had worked painstakingly for months, and found it entirely missing. After about an hour of searching, I was finally able to determine that you had deleted the article entirely (?) here, without any discussion. This is one of the most prominent Egyptian composers of contemporary classical music under 50, and hence one of the most prominent Arabic or Middle Eastern composers of such music, and, as such, I'd very much appreciate your graciousness in restoring this page so that this individual may be properly documented in our encyclopedia. Thanks so much in advance for this. Badagnani (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on why the Bodies of Water page got deleted. They've been reviewed by the Rolling Stone, Spin, Pitchfork, and a bunch of top music blogs (as I noted) -- which I would think would fulfill criterion #1 of the music notability guidelines. In addition, they've released two albums on Secretly Canadian and have one coming out in July (criterion #5). Also, they have "at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" (Adam Siegel) -- criterion #6. All this stuff was noted in the article. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I understand the need to police this kind of thing, but I think they are as deserving of an article as any of the other Secretly Canadian bands, as most of them already have got. Dulcettones (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the page! Dulcettones (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So i had a page called Clay was climbing on the pole and it got deleted, either could i have that back up or have a screenshot of it? thanks very much dude. I can see how you didnt want it on wikipedia.Jrpibb (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemike, I've just come back from holiday to find you've deleted a page I wrote years ago about a bar in Melbourne called Bimbo Deluxe. Can I ask why you decided to delete it? Thanks, Matnkat (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah I don't think so. Omission of the group from the article I don't think takes anything away from what the article is trying to say about a POD. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so am I. I even submitted some of my alternate history work to Changing the Times and the Alterante History Wiki. I haven't heard of your friend's group though until I saw that article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know the group does still exist, check out the change to the article. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User Page Design Center as a user request just now. Is that allowable for withdrawn for deletion discussions if others have left comments? I only ask because I contributed an opinion in the discussion before it was deleted. Should it have just been closed as "withdrawn" instead of deleted like that? Metros (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page you deleted today after it was marked for speedy deletion defined a certain kind of software developer for the benefit of similar software developers as well as users of that kind of software. As a resource to netizens, being able to understand the terms and roles involved is important for their own purposes. The page did not advocate any product, company or individuals. It defined the term "Progress Application Partner" as something more specific than simply "independent software vendor" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlucy67 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of the term "Progress Application Partner" as a type of software developer, and it doesn't appear to be any buzzoword, it appears to be only a company program --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is a BucAppella page any different from other A Cappella group pages on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABusa (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; I know that you have been an admin for longer than I have, and I will defer to your judgement. This user, to whom you gave an {{indefblock}}. is asking for a review. He claims to be only a fan of the band, not a member of it. I have no way of telling, but I have a feeling that he may be telling the truth. Would you care to review? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just today we here at my production company have been attempting to post articles on both The Ordinary Radicals as well as Jamie Moffett, the director of the film. The former entry was deleted due to conflict of interest violations as well as being considered promotional material. As the creators of the movie I am unclear as to how we are supposed to post an article without it being considered as such. At the moment we are the most qualified to provide information about it since the movie is currently in production. I realize that I forgot to cite a reference in the first iteration of the article, but as I was attempting to fix this in my User page (User:Chandlervision, I understand the reason for the username ban as it is also the name of my pseudo-company) that was also deleted. We have a fairly strong following of fans that is growing, and if we can provide them with a foundation to edit then we are confident that it will be fleshed out by them, as well as our staff providing the information that the fans cannot. I have read the page and editing guidelines but it's possible I missed some details or nuances. I simply don't see what was wrong with the entry, especially the one for Jamie Moffett who runs the company and would like to be included for context. One other thing to note is that our movie is not, and will not be copywrited, so the infringement seems non-existant. I'd appreciate a response or even suggestions as to how we can avoid breaking the guidelines for a future entry. Thanks for your time! --Stevemotion (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it kosher for SportsMaster to be doing this? SportsMaster's Contributions. Scroll down or hit next at this point. He wrote notes on several users boards about the vote over the AD from Cleveland State. It's relatively neutral wording, but these might be people who he has grown to know and work with on certain articles. What do you think? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He recruited a bunch of other users by leaving them messages on their talk page to get them to the AfD vote. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you put "The Comics (band)" page back on Wikipedia as they now have a record deal and are a support act for the band 'The Wombats'. PLEASE could you put it back on? -- CrackersTeam (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spamming indef block [1] seems a little....harsh. She created the nonsense article once, yes? Darkspots (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

create2 warn. Bored girl in her twenties. Hey, I see your point, too, though. No big deal. I guess I just like to see folks get a warning shot across the bow before the indef unless they really do something egregious. Darkspots (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your thinking to me. That make a lot of sense. Darkspots (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI I AM NEW TO WIKI I HAVE ALREADY HAD MY PAGE DELETED AND YOU DELTING IT DID NOT MAKE ME ANY HAPPYIER AND I DONT KNOW WHAT COUNTRY YOUR IN BUT IN MY COUNTRY IT IS CURRENTLY 3:42 AM AND I AM 15 SO IM SORRY BUT IT DID NOT HELP ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER1993 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange case. This may or may not be the same person. If it is, there's a serious COI issue. If not, he/she sure is a fan of this person. Either way, there's some assertion of notability, but hoo boy, trying to unearth it is a gargantuan task. I'm not de facto against an article, but certainly not this one. Oh, well...it's the weekend.  :) Thanks for all your good work. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For real? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this page deleted? I put the reason for its stay on the page and the talk page. It's an important part of the scout's history! I demand it be put back! Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you aren't a lefty lib. 72.60.178.71 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I tried to make this page last week and you deleted it for blatant advertising. Is there a way I could discuss the article and which parts specifically are advertising? I had no intension of advertising OfficeArrow on Wikipedia, simply just add the page, similarly to Facebook or LinkedIn or Ning.

Thank you,

Kevin--Kevincannella (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new movie producer Right out of collage and I think and I made a wikipedia page about a movie that is getting made and is very —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieTeal (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind taking a look at this thread as well as the DRV? Hoary had just restored it. It wasn't a G7 (it wasn' the author who requested it) and wasn't an A7, which was why I took it to DRV. I was *trying* avoid a wheel war. Thoughts? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you reverted the page for Tell City, In after I added information about the city. And added the place for what I was going to put about the type of Government and council, the parks and recreation and so forth, other cities pages have those kinds of information, why can't I add that for the city I live in. It wasn't any thing malicious, did you even look at the additions I made or did you just revert it cause I made it. Constitutional congress (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have made as many changes as possible to improve the article. However it is difficult for the one writing the article and whose first Wikipedia article it is to pin point all the mistakes. If there is anything missing or if you believe that the article now meets most Wikipedia requirements, I would be most grateful if you could let me know. It would be so nice to be able to delete some of those tags. Regards, Boselawrence (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence[reply]

Hello, I understand you don't delete pages simply because someone has retired, but surely you can respect the wishes of the subject of the page itself; my professional life and aspirations are being severely threatened by my internet presence and it would mean a great deal to my future to have this page deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazydork (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion was made by Gerald Home, NOT a blogger, but have become notable because of the repetition of Loudon and Kincaid. This 'audit trail' is therefore part of the notability.Flatterworld (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See articles about other political scandals. Yes, it is indeed encyclopedic to dissect them. The section is about this 'purported link', and therefore requires an explanation of how it became a purported link. Bring it up on the Talk page of the article is you like. Flatterworld (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You stated in my request to have my page deleted that I can't "rewrite history." I would understand that if Jimmy Carter or Madonna tried to delete their page, but I was a D-List youtube account who contributed nothing to the greater consciousness of society, pop culture, science, or even history. If I was ever notable, which is open to discussion, those days are long past and my page is a complete waste of space. In fact, wikipedia should be ashamed to even consider having an entry for such an utter and total nobody. Please reconsider; this has absolutely no effect on you, nor will you remember this in a week, but this sticks with me forever. Thank you.

Hi Mike. I take responsibility for my unblocks, and will monitor his contributions. If he doesn't follow the rules, I'll be the first to block him. Neıl 龱 15:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply to my question. "citation for personal communication" [2] I have another question about it and I couldn't figure out how to enter it on that page (This is my first day editing). The question is this: If personal experience can't be verified and thus can't be cited (makes sense), then is there a way to remove "needs citation" from the article? It seems a little weird if the information, by nature of its content, can't have a citation - to require one for it. Say, if the New York Times happen to order a DVD from the director and then published a story about it, I could reference that NYT's article, but in fact it was the personal experience of the Times journalist. Which we agree can't be verified. I understand reputation and why people trust some published sources (and not others). But what I'm wondering is how to address this particular situation. Since I happen to know that the statement is true and I would like to help that particular wikipedia article. Thanks again Orangemike.

DoctorRocket (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block these vandals please:

Here and User talk:Scoobydoo487, Both have had at least three of four warnings and some of their vandalsim has gone undetected. Things would be a lot easier if I had admin tools. It would save me pestering admins all the time. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that an article about the highly notable film Freddy Vs Ghostbusters is considered "original research"? Mozepy (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you are the one who said "original research". Mozepy (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]