This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi Orangemike. Earlier this year I wrote to you about the article Spectralon, which you had deleted as "blatant advertising". I'm starting to work on fixing it up. My draft is at User:Srleffler/Spectralon. Please undelete the original article to restore the edit history, and merge my draft there. I believe the current text and references are sufficient to establish notability of the subject, and restoring it to the regular namespace will make it easier to coordinate with other editors. Spectralon is an important engineering material, which has been the subject of many scientific papers. It should not be controversial to have an article on it.--Srleffler (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Re. Clou2epstein (talk · contribs), The Epstein School
Responding to a helpme, I advised the user about bestcoi, and suggested use of the article talk page, etc. As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know; I hope they'll accept best coi practice and discuss, etc. Please see User_talk:Clou2epstein#Request.
Cheers, Chzz ► 21:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Request:Hello Orangemike. I am taking the advice of Cheez to invite/request that in the future, you could talk about suggested changes or reccommendations on my talk page. I much prefer discussion and believe I am not only easy to talk to but reasonable...ie After hearing your input, I heeded your advice about the vodcast language and went further to remove additional language after I thought about what you said, because I understood and agreed with your point. I have been working diligently to improve the article and I am sure you have helpful insight to offer. With my appreciation. Clou2epstein (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I hope you are doing well. I came across an article about the Milwaukee Herold in the Wisconsin Historical Society. There was one problem: it was from a German language Wisconsin newspaper and written in German and it had something to do with 50 years. If you type in Milwaukee Herold in the society's website you should find it. Also a Wisconsin Historical Society marker was dedicated Monday September 28, 2009 in honor of former Governor Patrick Joseph Lucey in Ferryville, Wisconsin. The former governor was there. I thought you might be interested. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello there Orangemike. Your help and suggestions to improve this article's been greatly appreciated. Can you take another look at it again for me please. I've been collaborating with other helpful editors these past few weeks/months and I hope somehow I've made the necessary adjustments and improvements with their help. Does it still sound or read like an advertisement? This's been going on for quite a while now, and I know the article, probably has issues still that are keeping it at that. I hope you'd have time to guide me through it again and resolve these other issues. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Saw your warning here; No need to monitor this user's edits, as I've blocked them indef as an obvious sock of LadyLashes (talk · contribs). FYI, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As you suspected Jnl0031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is here for public relations purposes on behalf of Affiliated Computer Services. She contacted me via unblock-en-l requesting unblocking. I have counseled her extensively with respect to how to conduct herself in such a situation. I will monitor her editing closely. Fred Talk 22:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed something: what do you think the odds are this is Wade Eck who's listed as the CEO of MMA HEAT (an article he's created and work on along with related articles)? If he is, would that have any impact on the deletion of File:Karyn Bryant 1324.jpg (as in, should it be F11'd (no permission) instead of F9'd)? Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mike, thank you for your comments on the article "Mickola Vorokhta". Surely he is not Rafael. But there are many people at the Wikipedia pages who never get such achievements in the art as this 62 years old artist. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandr_Guristyuk - this person has no artworks in the Ukrainian or other museums, his work never was bought by the Ministry of Culture. He is even not a member of National Art Union. Notable? OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borys_Buryak - is he notable? OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychajlo_Dmytrenko Who it was? In Chicago Museum of Ukrainian Modern Art you could find hundreds of such notable artists. OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Filippov OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Garin - of course he's not living person but only Californians remember him OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruslan_Korostenskij Who is he? OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Kamennoy OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha_Putrya - many children are died from cancer & leucemia but do you think this small child was/is notable? OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Podervyansky - there is very famous Ukrainian man but his original artworks are ... very awesome. He is not a painter. OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Padal
May be there are some other similar notable painters - I have not checked all them. Could you specify why all listed people are notable and why Mickola Vorokhta - not?
Going on. At the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_composers you can see name of Svitlana Azarova. She is 33 years old composer and her name is in the list together with such great names as Lysenko or Bortniansky. She is famous? Or Mykola Suk? Or Roman_Yakub? Please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan Hawley (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 October 2009
Regarding your edit of this page (which is a work in progress), I am not sure if your succint comment indicates that you object to the content so much as the form of presentation. I am a list maker by nature, would this be better using more prose?
Riverpa (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Thanks for the response, but I am still confused. I added to the article because it was flagged as a starter article needing more content. I added too much content? The events that I added are recurring events, at least for the last 6 or 25 years. I did want to expand on them more, but did not do so immediately, hoping that someone else closer to individual areas would do so. So does this article need more content now or not?
Riverpa (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this a bit harsh? I would have expected a uw-ublock template because I wouldn't call his edits promotional. This is the state of the article as he left it with his last edit. The article might well fail to prove notable, but it is certainly not spam, and I think that rather than blocking the person most likely to be able to improve it, we should allow him to work on the article either on mainspace or (if the article goes to AfD and gets deleted) in userspace. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike - I see you've added a COI template to the Eddie Talboom article and talk page. Do you think it would be possible to just have the COI warning on the talk page? I pulled out the POV and original research COI edits from the article and added reliable sources for the remaining material. I don't think that a COI tag is necessary on the article itself as it reads neutrally and if a COI editor has edited at some point in time it no longer reads as such. I think the tag on the talk page is appropriate though so that other editors are aware of the potential conflict when User:Metalboom edits the article. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is also sourced to the BBC. Can you kindly tell me what the objection is to this? Footynutguy (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It is also sourced to the programmes actual website which is part of the BBC site. There won't be that much press coverage until nearer Children in Need when the single gets released. The YouTube source are mainly the actual shows transmitted on BBC2. Footynutguy (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to prod articles you must say so in the edit summary. [1] Please be more careful on this important point in future. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike,
I just updated the pages CxQL (pending deletion) and Checkmarx (still with comments). I think they are much better now (especially Checkmarx), but I want to know if I may remove the pending deletion and/or the remarks. I don't want to do it if the fixes are not good enough yet (I know the pages may then just removed). Am I in the right track? Are there any other changes I might need? I'm sure that in my next pages I will do better, this is my first try... :)
Thanks a lot in advance, Adarw (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I just saw your comments in the relevant pages' talk section. Thank you, I will fix the problems. Adarw (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again, but is there anything I can do to improve Checkmarx, so that it doesn't have the "citation improvement is needed" tag? Adarw (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
After completely rewriting the article, I have removed the COI template as it is no longer relevant. Please keep in mind that there are currently only 2 English language newspapers being published within the borders of Saudi Arabai, and since this author writes for one of them, some minor allowances have to be made. Please also see Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Media of Saudi Arabia for more information on the reason why information about Sameera Aziz's family is included. According to law in Saudi Arabai, working women must devote equal time to their work and their family, under penalty of public beating. As such, cultural differences must be respected by inserting information about her family while discussing information about her career. With biography articles on women in Saudi Arabia, we have to be somewhat more culturally sensitive to this type of information. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice. Winter is here! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
While I have no wish to get into an argument, I'm not sure I would support your actions with this user. The Los Angeles Emergency Management Department is a public agency, not the Acme Snake Oil Company, and I thought the information (although a copyvio) was informative rather than promotional. In the interest of "full disclosure", I have referred to this particular incident at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users in the section on speedy deletion - not as a criticism of yourself, but as an example of something that was being referred to about the usage of speedy categories. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you would consider restoring this article. It's history indicates that the overt spam was recently added, and there are versions that are not blatant spam. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
HI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimb0onwheelz (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the delete of my page...it took me months to compile...now to be honest i`m not going to be too hard on you as just looked at your picture and to be honest the beard makes you look like a total geek..the type of person i would expect to be in admin on wiki...i am orange mike cause i like orange... well im steve prick because i cant stand pricks like you who distroy peoples work...without people you are nothing!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newshomesarchive (talk • contribs) 07:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike,
Just to avoid any possible offence on your part, I'd like to point out that my rant against admins is directed against a whole bunch of people, and you're not one of them. We've had our disagreements, I'm still not sure I trust the speed of your trigger finger, but on the topic of "bad articles on good subjects" I might even have come round to your point that it's better to delete and start again!
Throughout it though, you've always struck me as an honourable guy who had firm principles and stood by them. You certainly taught me the importance of WP:AGF, both as a principle (which I might guess your Quaker background encourages?), and also as a pragmatic policy that simply does make things work better in the limited communications bandwidth of teh intawebs. Sadly though, I don't have quite your talent at implementing it!
The retirement flag is pretty serious. I might keep it up, I might not. It's not just about this last farce, it's something I've increasingly felt for a while now. I've worked pretty hard on a few articles over the last couple of weeks and although a few people with similar interests (engineering history) did comment appreciatively on them, it's not about appreciation: I'm too selfish for that, I'm just doing it because I find having a direction for studying something more interesting than just reading books in their order on the pile.
What upsets me though is the general lack of respect for content. There's an obsession with policy and politics, and too many people lose sight of the encyclopedia. I'm personally affronted when vandals do something to harm that, but "admins" (as a sheer generalization, sorry!) would rather pick on some easy policy issue from either side that they can latch on to to do something about, than they would look at which is beneficial or harmful. There's the old saw that those who can do, those who can't teach. I think hereabouts too many of them become admins. Then as they are admins, some adminning must be done! No matter whether it's good or bad, if it's a policy they can latch onto, they get to play the big role.
We've lost good editors: Peter Damian (who deserved better), MickMacNee who writes great stuff, only to have them slated for removal as soon as he publishes them - when he's between blocks of course, because this continual antipathy to his good work would wind anyone up. So some editors go to the Dark Side. Why bother with WP:AGF, when no one assumes it of you yourself? I'd rather not go down that route, hence the retirement.
I'll probably be back. I don't have the strength of will to resist! Far too much of a geek. A break probably would be beneficial though. Either way though, you were one of the good guys. Thankyou. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike; at your convenience, would you have a look at [3]? A vanity piece in need of copyediting at the least, but has some legitimate references. Question is, are they enough to meet notability? JNW (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is another article you should look at: Hipstamatic. I do not know if this is a hoax or the real thing. I always thought Wikipedia should have a wall of fame for the best hoaxes and this may be one of them. Hope you are well-RFD (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war. I've tried to engage Esoteriqa but didn't have much luck. What would be the next step in a case like this? Rees11 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Semi-resolved now. Thanks for your help. Keep up the good anti-spam work. Rees11 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I look at the current Wisconsin Legislature and I share your concern. For example there is no article about Michael Huebsch who was speaker of the Wisconsin Assebly when the Republicans were in control in 2007. It sounds like there is some backlog. Also I know the feeling about being bugged about an article that should be written. For example Christopher Sholes who invented the typewriter-he was in both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature. But he also has an older brother Charles Sholes who was also in both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and served as mayor of Kenosha, Wisconsin. It bugged me that Charles Sholes did not have an article. I finally wrote an article about Charles Sholes. There are some other articles that should be written. For example in the Coon Valley, Wisconsin article there is a redlink for Brian Rude who was in both houses of Wisconsin Legislature and served as President of the Senate. The same can be said about the late Paul Offner who also served in the Wisconsin Legislature both houses and later resigned from the Senate to return to public health. Paul Offner died 4-5 years ago. I will see what I can do-hopefully some wikipedians will come a long to help-Thanks-RFD (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be an advance EP with songs from the upcoming album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike I was wondering if this complies with Wikipedia procedures.
During an August 31st 2009 hearing of a legislative committee tasked with investigating alleged abuses by the state’s workman’s compensation insurer, Mitchell told a witness at the conclusion of his testimony that if he was nervous he should “relieve that” by “imagining the chairwoman in her underwear.” [Chairwoman: State Senator Morgan Carroll]. [1]
"It certainly looks like Shawn Mitchell singled out the chairwoman of the committee, Sen. Carroll, with his sophomoric, suggestive comment for no other reason than her gender and position of authority. How childish of him to insult not just Sen. Carroll, but women everywhere who daily face the silliness of sexism and trivialization in our culture," said former Lt. Governor Gail Schoettler. "As a former elected official who's been subjected to behavior like Mitchell's in the past, I believe that we have to call this out every time it happens, and we absolutely must hold elected officials who stoop so low accountable." A Colorado state senator has apologized for suggestive remarks he made about the chairwoman of a legislative committee earlier this month.
Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell of Broomfield apologized September 18, 2009 and said his remarks about Democratic Sen. Morgan Carroll of Aurora were inappropriate and unprofessional. Mitchell says he was trying to make a witness feel comfortable when he said that when he's nervous about testifying before a committee, "I relieve that by imagining the chairwoman in her underwear." Carroll told Mitchell she accepted the apology. DENVER (AP)
References: [1] Quote by former Lt. Governor Gail Schoettler [2] Denver (AP)
Eyeonyou (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
For reverting this. Useight (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, of course. It should be E. E. Smith, not e.e.smith (e.e.cummings we had to do at school, but I can't say I've read him since). I doubted anyone would get that reference :) you definitely win the balloon. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
the lensman blasted
into space
his ship will surely
win the race
— e e smith — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the common bond redlink at Prince George's Community Federal Credit Union. I have just created a redirect at Common bond to Bond of association in case anyone else adds the phrase "common bond" to an article about a credit union. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the blacklisting of a site. Although it is still unclear to me how "partisan" character of a site can be determined simply because it is a wordpress site. I can buy a server with a domain name and can still be as or more partisan :-) Is there a way to request for admins to look into the site and then consider for an un-ban?
Thank you! Vinter-light (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello there Orangemike. This article has the same issue as Lockwood's (advert.). I believe a good deal of rewriting has also been done here, with the help of other editors as well. I hope you'll also have some time to review the material for me? If there are other improvements I need to work on, I'd be glad to know your inputs/advice. Thanks a lot. Jxc5 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it might make it due to 3rd part coverage of the sales. I gave it the needed trim, or, more exactly, the needed major cutting & rewording. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike,
Thank you for your response. I am currently working with one of your other editors to create a Woodland Fairy Acres article that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. I greatly appreciate the continued help and guidance from all of the editors I've spoken with.
Thanks so much again!
Flwr petal fairy (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you deleted EKSRTD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EKSRTD, would you mind closing the related AFD? Thanks! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice work Mike, how long before User:Titties & Beer turns up I wonder. RMHED 02:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you weighed in on the content dispute and offered a comprise position. Well as you know, there is a bit of a content dispute in that article especially between myself and a pair of editors (one of which when I checked his talk page showed a history of hostility), User:Goethean and User:Frankpettit. Check the article history page, those two have basically been working as a tag team to work around the 3RR. That aside, would you be willing to informally mediate this dispute on the talk page? I am totally willing to accept your comprise opinion on the dispute. EricLeFevre (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I had to edit the last post, I incorrectly accused someone else who is not involved in the dispute, my apologies. EricLeFevre (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Orangemike! I think we have a bit of a tag-team going on here. I seem to be finding a fair number of role/promotional accounts, and you seem to be the one blocking em. So, I think we're a tag team! Basket of Puppies 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Foneio has reinstated the article that was replaced with a redirect. I've replaced the redirect to the History of Spain article. Maybe you could help keep an eye on the article? Is there some kind of warning or action that we could take? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Sir, Why was the post Frank Magana removed. I would think that you would warn or give some explanation for such an action. I had to search rather rigorously to find out that you had deleted it. He is a significant character in that he was the Artist that Created many of [Frank Lloyd Wright] and [Bruce Goff] Buildings, art and furniture. Its amazing that a man that does the work for the famous artists isn’t mentioned anywhere. We were in the midst of linking him to many well known architects and artists when you deleted him. If you personally do not know the artist is that a reason to delete him? Do you have that expertise? Please replave the article so I may save it off before you delete it permanently.
Thank you.
(Mark.crabtree (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
Orange Mike my name is Darnell Clark I've been trying to create a page for the Dukes of DaVille and it has been deleted. I am not doing the page for a shameless advertisement plow. I want to make sure when people are researching this group they can find their information and it can be located and archived on this particular encyclopedia. I feel that the Dukes of Daville have enough credits and enough relevant contant to have a page on Wikipedia. Please let me know what we are either lacking or what we need to take out to allow this page to exist. Thanks for your time and consideration. <redacted e-mail> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdarnelclark (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Mike, don't be rude and delete my pages, please give me back the info on Jeffrey Chase that you deleted. I am willing to learn and get the page up, but deleting it is a waste of my time. Contact me and lets work through this for a positive solution. Thank you! PeopleWriter (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)PeopleWriter
Mike, help me with the Jeffrey Chase bio. I want your help on this one, he meets the criteria you referenced too, I will build it in the User page first then present it for publishing. Thank you! PeopleWriter (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)PeopleWriter
Mike, help me build this house. I don't have any bricks, but I have all this straw, and a truckload of dandelion fluff to hold it together.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree please help people with their wiki's rather than deleting work.
Encountered a redlink "User:OrangeMike" (with capital M), so followed it and created userpage & talkpage redirects to you, to catch such miscapitalisations. If for any reason this is not desirable or helpful, please accept my apologies and delete at will. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You summarily deleted this, even though there had been a protest. I would have liked to put the new content in the redirect, but it's gone now. There was a discussion on categories that I am aware of, but not on this article or the subject matter as far as I know. Your arbitrary, and unilateral action will not stand. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan
Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan
You have deleted my work that I had been working on. Please "Respect" my time as I will respect yours. I didn't want to use the heading above to be viewed as a threat in anyway, I am using it to get your attention to help me. I asked the other "admin" people who like to "delete' pages rather than create them to help during this process, I have spent numerous hours trying to work with "admin" with little success. If I don't get a positive solution in 24 hours, I will be filing a formal complaint with Wikipedia. I didn't create the page two years ago, I am merely adding information and solid references along with authorized images only to have them deleted. You want to set up a conference call with me, I will gladly give you my number. Please don't hide behind the internet by being introverted. I realize a lot of you are overweight, unhealthy, and/or not happy with your lives in general (I can help you turn your life around, just ask).
I agree the 21 Magazine page needs to be worked on, but to be fully deleted? I am not looking for any rebuttals from you, I am looking for a solution. If you have the time to delete and make negative comments, you have the time to also help me and make a difference. The point is, please don't burn a bridge with me, help me and we can move forward. Modelmanager (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Mike, I did participate in the discussion with only help from one guy! (Footnote: I noticed you like to shoot from the hip on Wiki via my research, So I will "KEEP MY COOL" on my end and hopefully you will change your ways on your end). Kevin was the only Admin guy to help on my page, I got taken out from 4 to 5 admin people going "delete" crazy like a bunch of Commandos including yourself. One Admin guy even has a Stat Graph on his User page bragging about how many pages he has deleted with no stats on pages he has built or help edit. Why is this appear to be a game for some Admin people? Quick to shoot you down to put another notch on the belt, but not quick to help! I am looking for help here, not to waste my time or your time. I am relentlessly looking for help! I am not on the right or on the left, I am in the center moving forward!
...."Words without Actions are the Assassins of Idealism"" POINT BLANK QUESTION MIKE! Are you going to help me with my page? Modelmanager (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Hello Mike,
Is there a place for this type of article? We would like to list all of his contibutions to many artists and community projects. I think I remember a Biography wiki or something. What kind of documentation do you need? Blue prints of the houses he built and pictures of the Wright furninture he made for the Price tower?
Any advice would be appreciated.
Thank you.
(Mark.crabtree (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
Hi Orangemike,
Re: this. The CfD discussion, which I closed, was to delete the category. That decision has no bearing on whether the list should have been speedily deleted or not. In fact, the list pre-dated the category and one argument in the discussion was that the category could be deleted because the list existed. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this article is being heavily edited by IPs originating from the PR firm: Fleishman-Hillard who appear to be the PR firm for Vocera Communications (example). We're currently edit warring so I'm going to take a step back, if you could take a look it would be appreciated. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You have marked my page "the necronomicon" as vandalism and an obvious hoax? In doing so, you have discredited my beliefs, and the belief of an ancient culture. I would appreciate if you would have an open mind to other religions besides your own. You are very insulting, and close minded. My page was completly seperate from other "necronomicon" posts because every post I see marks them as fiction and or false.
I as a person believe in the Necronomicon, I practice the rituals of the book, and had proof of it's existance clearly from nazi archives. Seriously why are you trying to hide the powers of this book. H.P. lovecraft had to much information on this book to create it himself. He obviously came across one of the originals, and practiced the rituals.
Which is where he got his info. once the gates are opened the watchers can answer any question you seek. I find it offensive that on "christianity" posts, it does not say fictional characters are involved. Because there is no lagitamate proof to thier existance, besides a book. You are claiming that a book(the necronomicon) doesnt exist. You would be insulted if I were to say that "christianity was a hoax and further more a plot to turn people to a false profit."
Please unblock my page so that the truth can be told, it is also my right to have freedom of speech.
And further more "Orange" is the most obnoxious and hidious color in the spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punktothec (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
which they took from the Bibliotheque Nationale durring raids. As we all know Hitler was a member of the thrule society, and a beleiver in the occult. There is just no way that a white man from brooklyn hieghts create this book. The Sumerians created the necronomicon. end of story call it a hoax... what ever. the truth is in the rituals. christ is the false profit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punktothec (talk • contribs) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
i have known of Robert Bloch and the whole lovecraft circle i onw H.p. lovecraft books. I could go on and on about everything he and his friends done. but the point is there is no proof to say he just made it up. when his story also goes along with sumerian beleif structures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punktothec (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Mike: I see The Necronomicon is protected as deleted; may I suggest protecting it as "#REDIRECT Necronomicon" instead? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I was quite excited this evening to discover that I wasn't the only person in the world to have a peculiar aversion to certain images and objects containing small holes or crevices. My daughter had run across the word trypophobia somewhere or other and described the condition to me. I was astonished that this is a phenomenon experienced by others. I first noticed it when I was 9 or 10--it was more or less confined to the clustered dots on the surface of artichoke hearts. I get a similar reaction to cracked, dry desert beds, trabeculated bone, and porous rocks. I'm a physician, and natural skeptic--but you missed the boat here. Understandably, I guess--it's a peculiar thing, for which there's no literature, but surely not the only odd syndrome out there for which the internet is the perfect tool for uncovering.
206.248.167.220 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orange Mike - regarding this post of yours, I just wanted to let you know that the account has been abandoned by the user, so they will probably not receive your message. (I advised them in IRC that their username was a violation of policy, and they have registered a new one. Regrettably, they left the channel before I could ask what the new name was.) However, I did also inform them of the same issues you have raised and, as far as I could tell, they seemed to understand. Regards, AJCham 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I put the {hangon} tag plus i was willing to clean it up, why was it deleted without a consensus? Portillo (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought this user's request for unblock seemed pretty legit, but I thought I would get your opinion first as the blocking admin. Cheers! TNXMan 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what personal assertions I made to the Dragons article. Since I mentioned very clearly that the article is biased, and directed in an atheistic/non-neutral viewpoint, its curious why you redirect that claim to me. Also, you reassert my opinion by adding, "we're trying to be serious". If you wanted to be serious you shouldn't add "millions of years" fairytales as if its fact. If "dragons aren't real because dinosaurs lived 65 millions years ago based on unreliable datings of rocks, and assuming rocks assign fossils dates" isn't baised towards atheism and secular opinion rather than real science, then what is? I'm not concenred with a reply or if what I wrote was deleted. I wanted to make it very clear how biased wikipedia is. If people are personally biased towards atheism themself, then thats there life. But adding everything in wikipedia from that viewpoint is nonsense. Next time you'd like to be serious, consider not calling yourself Orangemike and wasting time on the internet writing meaningless articles. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't care, but I will point out for your sake that mocking isn't an argument against or for something. Putting Creation Science in the same category as mythical creatures and superstious beliefs shows your viewpoint quite well.
Correct. You don't take into account truth. You take into account Atheist's views. The general population of scientists are atheist( non-neutral). Taking opinions over facts isn't science. The consensus that molecules evolved into man is held high in the scientific community, but can't be backed up with science, hence, it is a non-neutral viewpoint. The consensus that Gravity exists is a fact, hence it is neutral. Origins are seperate from science, as science can't explain what happened in the past. It is only a "how something works" tool. Religous beliefs( including atheism/humanism) is for Origins. But using a specific religous belief that dominates scientific fact is biased and makes out science itself as a way to market their(scientist's) beliefs.
I wish that were so, but yet I continue to see Atheist/Humanist ideas on all aspects including those who write the Religous sections. We'd all be happier when religous dogmas are erased, but sadly that is not so. You will still see teachers and proffesors preaching about how man evolved from monkeys. If you wanted to create articles based on truth, you wouldn't do so by using presuppositions that atheism is a fact.
Once more, I am not interested is wasting my life writing or reading meaningless articles. I only pointed out the truth in hope that atheists didn't rule over these baords and that someone would agree that presuppositions on atheism is a driving force in culture and thought. Example: Beliving Dragons and Dinosaurs aren't connected based soley on the idea humans lived millions of years apart. Yet if that weren't the case, you'd see humans mention dinosuars throughout history, which we do. That is why you have many countires spanning nations and cultures talking about the same creature. Yet based on your self interest and Popular Opinion, you think me explaining their connection is a matter of perspective rather than truth, and that an article talking about the "mythical creature known as Dragons" is more important than the fact that man and dinosaurs co-exstisted. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike,
I noticed that you deleted the page on Daft.ie. I'm one of the founders of the company - the wikipedia page has never been written/modified by anyone in the company so any advertising material in there was unintentional.
Some points on why I think the company page should feature on Wikipedia.
- Daft is one of the most visited websites in the country
- We are long established company with deep brand recognition in Ireland and internationally. Our economic analysis features regularly in press. See Time magazine and Reuters articles below:
- Other proof of importance/relevance
I'm not sure what was in the previous article, perhaps you could undelete it and I can update the article to remove the text that was 'advertising'.
Regards,
Brian
Brian982582 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
the fuck are you buddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolutionist6 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 October 2009
Result = keep. Painfully.- Sinneed 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this COI tag, several folks have been keeping a close eye on this article and I think its claims are pretty much all sourced properly. Yes, there is some effort to make it promotional, but so far it has not been successful. Can you elaborate on the placement of the COI tag? Frank | talk 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's the Infernus article, where you could just extract the citation for the rape business and put it into the Quantos Possunt ad Satanitatem Trahunt article if you're up and ready to invest some energy into modifying the latter article if absolutely necessary. If the likes of yourself and other such people on wikipedia feel the impulsion to point out problems on potentially the most pedantic of grounds, then you might as well fix them and not confine yourself to the box. Dark Prime (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You blocked my account Nazisasquatch for a reason that Nazi is insulting. My name is Nazis (PRONOUNCED Nahh-sis) and I find sasquatch an amusing word and I left out the extra s. Please unblock it or tell me how to get my username changed so it's good or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.143.82 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey OrangeMike, sorry if my page violated policies. I'm teaching a Web 2.0 class called "Beyond Facebook" and I just wanted my students to have the ability to work with a live Wiki article. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilk2695 (talk • contribs) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No rationale for deletion was provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Billion. The assumption is that it is for notability reasons but perhaps as nominator you can make clear with an explicit statement. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It would have been courteous had you 1. notified me of this article's impending deletion per wiki convention ("There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination"), and 2. mentioned (aside from the general and not very helpful Wikipedia:CSD#A7 waffle) why an online newspaper that is of importance for the peoples of the Solomon Islands and surrounding area was not sufficiently notable for our project. Apart from it being self-evidently notable, is not the fact that it is cited as a reference five times in an article about the 2009 Samoa earthquake sufficient? I'd appreciate your views before I recreate the page. Best regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orange Mike, I have edited the "entrepreneurship" paragraph to remove content that was referenced with blog posts, after learning more about the citation policy. How else can this article be improved to avoid deletion? Thanks, Audiohifi (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking out the article Halloween in the Castro. I'm new and a little intimidated by another editor. If you could watch the talk and edits, I'd appreciate it. Andy54321 05:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy54321 (talk • contribs)
I recently came across a publication that had an article that was largely plagiarized from several WP articles. I realize that WP isn't copyrighted, but it is licensed. The Creative Commons license states, "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work." In this case, that wasn't done. My question: Does anyone at WP care that its material is used in violation of the license? If so, what to do? --Sift&Winnow 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know a reasons why you removing my page? There is page to check with editors format of correct pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinogradovisoleksii (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Your previous edits of my articles were in good form, but your recent ones seem rude; there's no need to call anything I've written pretentious or prod fun at accidental misspellings. I thank you for your contributions, but please just help me improve the articles, don't mock them. Also: your name cropping up has prompted me to reach for an orange box of mac and cheese for lunch. Kafkacafe (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Trader Joe's Wisconsin Cheddar, in fact. Happy early winter, neighbor, and thanks. I'll probably pester you for more guidance in my contributions as time goes on. Kafkacafe (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In helping to establish notability for my article on Christopher Michael Beer, I have WP:LOCALINT to reference: "Sources from local papers and other materials found within the city or town can be used, and may even be exclusively used to establish notability." And..."Most likely, an article on a local interest will be created by someone who lives in the area, has previously lived there, or has spent a significant amount of time there. This is perfectly acceptable, and in fact encouraged, provided that those creating these articles are aware of these guidelines". With the MPR and KFAI interviews, would this at least be enough to get the proposed deletion tag removed? Kafkacafe (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to contest the afd of Christopher Michael Beer, but I guess I just need some further clarification as you never told me how it didn't satisfy the local interest notability. Thank you! Kafkacafe (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any way to retrieve content deleted when the Chattanooga Stand and CreateHere entries were removed? Additionally, I was wondering why the pages were deleted? Was it nominated? Many thanks. Veronique.bergeron 15:32, 2 November 2009
If your able to reference the other information in the article, please do cause i can't find any references for them. --TIAYN (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Orangemike … I think that you may have deleted User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan in error when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevin Millan … that was the user's sandbox that several editors were helping the user to fix so that it might be resubmitted … I don't see how closing the AfD also called for the deletion of a user's sandbox … please restore it.
Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, Orangemike … Might I trouble you to keep an eye on 75.57.175.7 (talk · contribs)? They have twice removed the ((AfD)) from Stan Helsing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and may need to be blocked if they continue their disruptive edits … Thnx! — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added some secondary/third-party sources about the topics in this article. I just hope the context that these sources present may be good enough to be considered as reliable. I need your inputs please. I truly appreciate your time guiding me around. Thank you for all the help. Jxc5 (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I saw that he had deleted a section someone else had put up where they had stated it would be nice to inform users if he started a mediation that involved them. I put it back and added my own comment about it, but didn't notice that I had accidentally taken away a comment by another user. Again, so sorry about that. Glad you caught it! Anakinjmt (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you or someone has taken down material relating to "The Lost Symbol: Found" - I think this resolves the issue. Thanks for this. I deleted your message from my talk page as it seems to me this is actioned and solved. Graemedavis (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You wrote:
I prefer to yield to my "editorial reflexes" than to a rule lacking in common sense. I have done this many times, and have yet to have an admin push it. In this case, I fixed a few typos and bad grammar to make the post—which had a good point—more readable. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your inputs Orangemike especially your advice. I did fix the formats of the article's footnotes and added a few more citations. Do you think they're good enough? Jxc5 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, Orange Mike!
EVERY newspaper article, news story, blog...EVERYTHING I have ever read or listened to about the subject mentions the cannibalism part. As for references go, do you think Underwoods words himself to the FBI in his confession video be an adequate enough source for citation?Chris Hawk (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I just saw where User:Covenant Presbyterian Church of Chicago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) placed a malformed unblock request to make a change of username. Since the block was for username only, I'm going to go ahead and unblock this user. I'll also remind them that they'll still have a COI, even if they change names.
If you have any objections to this, please let me know. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Septemberboy009/Blades_(band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I created a page some time ago about a theory of Mullasadra named Substantial motion which was deleted by you. I want to re-create it again because I have enough References to provide a good article about this subject/please tell me what do you think? Bbadree (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't know why this is so questionable to you, but yes, Bacone Style is a widespread Native art style covered by numerous books about Oklahoman American Indian painting. Partioners include the Tiger family, Dick West, Woody Crumbo, Acee Blue Eagle, Fred Beaver, the Rabbit family, etc., etc. Here's another source. Surely it's time to move on to other editing pursuits? -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Is you reelated tuh Richard Stawlmun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaankenhaarden (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was recently patrolling new pages, and wasn't sure what do to with this. I later found it deleted as an R3. I'm not sure if it was speediable, but I'm sure it wasn't a redirect when I looked at it. Would you double check the history of this one? --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ug, I'm trying to create an article about a newspaper in Panama, I live in Panama, and the people of Panama, like to read it. wish you guys would get off your buttons for 5 MINUTES!
thanks, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboo.jack (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You said the following:
According to the stub I deleted, this is not a newspaper but a website. Websites without any evidence of notability are subject to speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You give me less than five minutes to write about this topic. I know you're an AMERICAN citizen, but if you were in PANAMA, a country in Latin America which has little representation on Wikipedia in English, you would think that The Panama News is an important piece of media!
I've given up, you win, I won't even bother writing the article until I have YOUR permission.
Thanks, have a good night.
Roboo.jack (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You said:
There is clearly a misunderstanding here. You must write the article first; then you put it on Wikipedia. I don't pretend to be an expert on Panama (although I have union brothers in the Zone). If you really believe this website is notable, then create a draft article in a sandbox (I'll even create one for you, at User:Roboo.jack/Panama News), and once you think it's ready to publish, drop me a note and I'll have a look at it. Fair enough? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this. BTW the Panama Canal Zone has been gone for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboo.jack (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
As you deleted it, I just realized I'd like a copy of the contents of File talk:SGUTVlogo.jpg, would you mind resurrecting it to User talk:pd_THOR/SGUTVlogo.jpg? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that User:Chrisisinchrist's account may have been compromised. It was under his account that the article Desmond Styles was created, which seemed to be a borderline vandalism article, but certainly fell under A7 CSD. It just seems out of character for him, since I don't see any other time that somebody nominated one of his articles for speedy deletion. I noticed that you deleted the article, so I figured I'd go to you for advice on what action to take, if any.Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 10:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Is asking to be unblocked. I'm soliciting input from admins involved in the original blocking. For the moment I am seeking comment at his talk page, but it may end up being a better idea to move to ANI or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you're a bit of a deletionist. I think I am too. What's your opinion on an article like coconut doughnut? Should every iteration of food have its own article? Thanks for your input. Pdcook (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I was about to add ((WPBiography)) to Talk:Leanni Lei when I read the message about the previous deletions. I hope this may be useful to you. -- allen四names 06:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind taking a look at this one? Seems to me like a coi & pov pushing from single-purpose account, but I'm not sure what would be the best course of action in this case… don't want to make it into an edit war. Skarebo (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry for disturbing you, but you approved ConceptDraw MINDMAP article and I hope that you could help me.
Recently my account was blocked and all articles were deleted (except ConceptDraw PROJECT, but it got speedy which was rejected). The article which was approved by you was deleted by G11 too.
May I explain you the situation from side? I'm not trying to hide my COI or use proxies, I behave by Wiki rules, I wrote articles which were approved by Wiki admins and after that suddenly all of them deleted by Hu12. Moreover, he blocked my account because of bad history of ConceptDraw products in Wiki (but I was trying to fix this situation) and the existence of other accounts from this IP (VPN Internet gives us a single IP for all workers, but only I'm writing about our products, no puppets at all) and I'm evading block (write from my IP not using proxies) only for appealing and discussion. My goal is to provide useful and objective information about notable products that will met Wiki requirements. The existence of articles about our competitors products (which are far more promotional and have less references) confirms that it's possible.
Could you please give me any advice concerning this situation? I don't want to make things worse.
Many thanks in advance.
Sincerely yours, CSOWind. 195.138.71.154 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This article I have now written twice. I defended it in the proper way against deletion and it was nonetheless deleted without comment. I think this is rude, inexcusible, and gives no consideration for my time. R. B. Jones is no less important than any other linguist working at a university and I think you will find hundreds have pages. Please restore the page I wrote. Tibetologist (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Orange Mike,
Will you please take a look at the Mike Cox page and revert the story back to as it was with Skarebo last week who undid earlier vandalism? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.238.167.66 (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mike,
You deleted the Phil Town page yesterday due to "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I am Phil Town's webmaster for both his official site and blog site. All I did was add both links to the "External links" section of Phil Town's wiki page. Phil is a bestselling author like Seth Godin. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin you'll see he has even more external pages. Can you please restore Phil Town's page and include those 2 external links? Thanks in advance for your consideration. Jronc23 Jronc23 (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and sorry if you don't like talkbacks. I just have very bad luck with people missing things. Should I just not bother for admins? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to request for you to undelete the article Bunkface, a Malaysian band consisting of four members. The band became famous after its song "Through My Window" was used in a TMNet television commercial [4]. The band won the "Rockstar Awards" and "The Ultimate SHOUT! Awards" from SHOUT! awards 2009 [5], just to name an award they won. I am willing to write the article and I have a few sources, provided that the article gets your green light to be undeleted. Kristalyamaki (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I've added enough of these citations/references needed to verify some materials in the article or to provide enough info. I hope I did. I also applied the proper formatting as you advised. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Mike, on the distant offhand chance you might like it, I tinkered with the headers of your userpage and talkpage. Now, I abase myself in apologies should this prove not to be to your liking. The code to remove is on the top lines of each page and consists of "((User:((BASEPAGENAME))/Title))". These invoke files you could tinker with if you just want to change fonts/sizes/etc.: User:Orangemike/Title and User talk:Orangemike/Title. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Why cant flow factory be created as an article no more. Pope132 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Aight just askin. Thanx Laterz. Pope132 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
What, may I ask, was your reasoning for using G11 on Getjar. Have you researched the subject at all? Please undo! -- Egil (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The 2 articles about Michael Huebsch and Lee Nerison members of the Wisconsin State Assembly were deleted. No reason given-any suggestions? Thanks-RFD (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Mike, would you be so kind to check out the edits that User_talk:24.159.187.122 has made to Russ Mitchell. It appears that this editor is causing formatting problems with his/her edits. I've reverted his/her edits twice, but do not wish to get into an edit war in case this editor chooses to make this edit a third time. If I am mistaken in may assessment, I would appreciate it if you would tell me this. If you would prefer not to review these edits, please suggest an alternate admin. Please reply on your talk page. Thank you in advance for your assistance, --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted this page- a reference to the Detroit Lions National Football League team in 2008 being (so far) the only team to lose all 16 games in the regular season- because it's an "implausible redirect". Considering that there's a redirect for 17-0- a reference to the only season where a team (the Miami Dolphins) won all of its games, including the Super Bowl, I think it's only fair that "0-16"- still synonymous with the Lions and very well known- have a similar redirect.
Thanks.-20:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomeW (talk • contribs)
I'd like to know what your rationale was for deleting the entry on Blossom Goodchild, which happened just four days ago. The page had been up for over a year and continued to receive hits. Why is it gone? Hoopes (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not responding to your talk.
If an article with this name could be created it has a troubling error, the final "o" needs an umlaut not an acute accent. So can we change that?
Regards, Irv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvdiamond (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a little help here. I understand I'm not supposed to copy complete articles, but it's the only thing I have to tell Firman's great story. I thought I could use material like this if I put it in quotes and provided clear attribution to the source, which I did. I doubt that the article still exists, at least I haven't been able to find it online, so a reference wouldn't mean much as far as verification goes. I knew the man and I know the story is true! I'd appreciate some guidance, I can't re-write the story nearly as well as the reporter did! LynnSGrubb (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response on my talk page. I hope this is the place for my reply. If not, please advise. I don't think I have a conflict of interest, I am just a family genealogist who happens to have discovered a few family members I think are noteworthy because they have historical significance. Most are already mentioned on other pages. Firman was just the first and easiest because the work was already done by a creditable source, and I thought I could use it by giving attribution. I don't see any easy way around the problem because the article is my only source; if I rewrote it I would still have to reference it. Therefore I have requested permission from the newspaper to reproduce the article in Wikipedia. If they grant permission, would that solve the problem? LynnSGrubb (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
What's the rationale here? I know the policy is that plurals should be avoided unless its a cat, list, or that's the only way the word is used (i.e. pants). In this case the term is regularly used in the singular form, as shown in the first sentence of the article. Wizard191 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Why did you propose the deletion of the Young Legend music article. The article was not used for advertisement but for info, as Young Legend's popularity is growing in his said region. Young Legend is an artist signed to a major record label, currently has a TOP 10 hit in 6 major markets across the south. What was the exact violation of the article.JardenBooks (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Last week, I posted four articles on patient-related resources and initiatives relating to Parkinson's disease, which you deleted:
The reason you gave for deleting these articles is that they didn't indicate why their subject was important. You also noted that my account might be blocked from editing if I continued to post such articles.
I'm respectful of Wikipedia and its guidelines, and I'm glad to work to make sure anything I post meets the proper criteria. At the same time, I do think the topics I created entries for are, in fact, important subjects (especially in the Parkinson's disease community and even beyond), and worthy of inclusion. (Perhaps the Parkinson's Insights entry may have been questionable since it was about a blog, but the I do feel the other subjects are worthy.) I would have appreciated it if, instead of deleting the articles immediately, you could have noted they need to be cleaned up or further edited to show that their topics were worthy of inclusion. I would have been glad to make the necessary changes (explain in better detail why they're important, cite more sources, etc.).
Do you think you could give it a second thought and restore the articles (at least the first three), and I will make any necessary revisions or changes to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? If you have any specific feedback or suggestions, I would be glad to consider them. Also, please do not block my account. I don't believe that failing to show the notability of the subjects of one's articles meets the criteria for blocking an account. Once again, I want to be respectful of Wikipedia and its guidelines, but also have the ability to post and edit articles on important topics.
Thank you for your help. Rlewinson (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Rlewinson
Thank you for the suggestion about using the sandbox. I knew this option existed, but wasn't sure how to use it properly. I will certainly keep this in mind for any new pages I create in the future.
Regarding the conflict of interest you note -- that's not the case here. All of the articles I posted last week that you deleted were about educational and patient empowerment initiatives relating to Parkinson's disease. These have nothing to do with JDRF, which focuses on type 1 diabetes. You will note in my contribution history that I've made just one edit to a JDRF-related page in the last 10 months (to update facts).
I certainly understand how you thought there might be an issue, but given what I've explained here, can you give a second thought to restoring my articles? Thanks again for your help. Rlewinson (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Rlewinson
As you will recall I am interested in Gustaf Nordenskiold. I would like for this or an edited version to be included under (1) arrest an exoneration or (2) create a new article "Gustaf Nordenskiold - Arrest and Exoneration"
The material was created by me from government sources.
MUCH TROUBLE SOME EXPENSE NO DANGER
Irving L. Diamond
Abstract*
The controversy over Gustaf Nordenskiold and his collection, now a century old, has become a legendary story with persistent themes identifying him as a villain. The documents from which this paper is derived pinpoint from government archives precisely what Nordenskiold did, what the American government did about it, and which members and branches of our government took various actions. Fourteen American and Swedish officials are identified; one American, a federal official acting as a citizen, is also identified. Documentary and official records of how government officials of the United States and Sweden scrutinized what Nordenskiold had done and agreed that he could take his collection to Sweden are presented. Nordenskiold was arrested for trespassing on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. Because he was a “foreigner” he ought to have had a permit according to Section 2134 of U. S. Statutes. The United States District Attorney, after he was convinced by the local Indian agent to arrest Nordenskiold and after he had an opportunity to examine the situation a bit more closely, decided that the violation was merely technical. Three members of the president’s cabinet (State, Justice, and Interior) became involved and agreed quickly to drop the prosecution. The Bureau of Indian Affairs brought the charge in the first place and expressed doubts about the final outcome, but in the end did what the Secretary of the Interior wanted done. Nordenskiold found two factions among the citizens of the San Juan Valley and Durango and Mancos. Apparently, Reece McCloskey (involvement is based on a spoken record subject the written confirmation) led the anti-Nordenskiold faction. The faction on Gustaf’s side was led by B. K. Ritter, an official in the U.S. Land Office. In order for the case to be dismissed, this formula for settlement, which Nordenskiold was to follow, appears in a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs:
"In reply I transmit herewith a copy of a letter this day addressed to the Agent at the Southern Ute and Jicarilla Agency instructing him to permit the Baron to retain the relics removed with the exception of any skeletons or bones that there are in the lot, which are justly claimed by Indians as the bones of their ancestors or relatives. "
The local Indian agent, although he brought about the arrest, was designated to and did notify Gustaf of these terms. After the matter of the arrest was settled, Nordenskiold received permission from the Secretary of the Interior, John W. Noble, to travel across Navajo country to the Hopis and beyond. Gustaf Nordenskiold subjected himself to U.S. law; he honored his bail and accepted a formula written in Washington for settlement of his case. He was not charged with any violation relating to the collection of “relics”; in 1891 no so such law existed.
Dear Orange Mike,
Thank you for the comments you recently left on my user page. I can see that you are very dedicated to Wikipedia and I apprecaite that. I am just trying to show examples of antique rugs. Nazmiyal has the best collection of images. I would like to upload images from thier site to my article. Could you please give me instructions on how to do so? I have tried to follow the online guide, but so far have only been able to upload to the commons. I am a student of interior design. I used Nazmiyalantiquerugs.com as a reference as they provide many scholalry articles. Since they are a reference, I feel that I must show I used thier site. Could you please not delte that link on my posting? I want others to see the images and i want my references to be clear. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquerugs32 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike. I've removed your PROD from The Guard (film) since I think the sources contain just about enough coverage. I admit that it's a bit borderline though, so I'd be happy to discuss (either here or at AfD) if you still disagree. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Can't you wait for jrtechsupport to be rewritten so its worded properly, instead of deleting it? Its a hassle with you keep on deleting it, before I could even get the chance to reword it so its not spam. Or in an advertising way. It may be like that, but at least you could have waited for someone to reword it, so that it will be in view as an encyclopedic article. Instead of deleting an article that needs a chance to have some time, to grow and get bigger, and become encyclopedic. Please reply to this message. Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I appreciate your feedback. I am working on the page based on your comments- I've added footnotes, internal links and am trying to increase the number of reliable sources. Do you see improvement so far? I will continue to improve it over the new few days. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandaemde (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Orangemike. I noticed while editing the Jackson, Tennessee article that you had put it under indefinite semi-protection back in October. I can understand your use of semi-protection due based on the vandalism it was experiencing at that time, but indefinite semi-protection seems a bit excessive. Is there more to this than what I've noticed, or would do you plan to lift the protection at some point? --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemike&action=edit
I fail to see how the article, as written, is any different than that of North by Northeast, Halifax Pop Explosion, Evolve Festival, Celtic Colours, or Stan Rogers Folk Festival. There was no more tone of spam or advertisement in the article than any other written about a specific event.
Stoked for the Holidays is an annual event, important to many people who live in the Sydney NS area and return for the holidays each year. Unlike other I listed, specifically Celtic Colours which is in the same exact area each year, this event is specifically used to nurture and maintain a music scene that is six hours from the next closest city (Halifax). It may not be important to many who grew up outside the community, but much of our population lives in other regions and many of those people make this event an important part of their visit back each year for the holidays.
I believe the article should be reinstated. Wikipedia should have more articles that are regional and interest people of all walks of life. I read Wikipedia for hours each day at work and more articles like this would really help in showing culture of smaller areas rather than just that of major centers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undertheunderground (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when you are dealing with non-mainstream culture, much of the information comes from the source itself.
CBLocals.com is an amazingly popular blog set up that gets thousands of unique hits each month and was the starting point for expansion (Halifaxlocals, Monctonlocals, etc) in Eastern Canada. In true internet fashion, the site has developed from an informal forum to a more journalistic approach over the last 12 years of existence, but there is no debating it's notability.
By doing a little searching, you can easily find information on the event on the web. Here shows a listing of the past ten years of the event as well as core page entries outlining the development of the event.
If you google the event, you can easily find a facebook group for the event and the gift exchange, which is run by a university radio station. You can also find video of a nationally regognized band (Drowning Shakespeare) playing at the event, as well as an entry on the MakePovertyHistory website.
Again, look at the Celtic Colours entry. Look at the Evolve festival entry. Look at pretty much every other festival or event entry. This entry is no more spam or promotional than those. Despite the event perhaps lacking international relevance, the event showcases the music and culture of a specific area. It is relevant to anyone in the area, of which there is near 100,00 people, as well as the thousands that have moved away over the last ten years to Ontario, Alberta, and even the USA.
I think you are being a little too hard ass on this article. I think there are bigger battles to wage than taking down an article about an important event in a small area's underground culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undertheunderground (talk • contribs) 10:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Undertheunderground (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I undid the redirect for Uzbekistan 2020 since it seems fairly noteable. It has a lot of mention online (just under 10,000 hits on Google), and while that is mostly due to the payment for Monica Bellucci's presence, I'd note that this is the most attention any Uzbek organization has received. It's also the largest PR push Uzbekistan has made in Europe, which is interesting since there there has been an ongoing political debate over how (or if) the EU should deal with senior Uzbek officials, especially considering their horrific human rights record and events like Andijon. I'd mention it in the article myself, but that would be OR - I'm sure the Central Asia analysts at sights like EurasiaNet will write more on it soon, which will help to expand the article. Lola Karimova has founded other organizations before (none of which deserve article, I'd say), but nothing this bold, or with this much attention. P.S. I just saw you nominated the article for deletion - I probably should I written on your talk page first with my rational before undoing your edit (I'm a slow typer). Anyway, hope this clears things up, and you could undo the AFD? Otebig (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Please restore this article. It's widely cited by many news stories. It got tagged for deletion within minutes of creation, and you deleted it before I even had a chance to put in the hangon. Bachcell (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the two images I up loaded for the Three Investigators page. They were HqThreeInvestagators.jpg and SalvageyardThreeInvestigators.gif because you claimed that it had an improper license. I went through all the hoops or so I thought and got both of them copyrighted. I am trying to understand how Wikipedia works but every time I think I got some thing right I'm wrong and I am really getting frustrated and am thinking about quitting after only a short time editing here. Please respond and help me understand what I am doing wrong. --Ebnielsen (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I got permission from the man that created those images and they were taken down because I checked the wrong box? That part of the uploading process could be made a lot clearer, and why do you have all those options up when one is good all the time and the others only rarely? It seems to me that you need a law degree in copyright law to upload any thing. I thought the whole purpose of Wikipedia was to let any one post on it as long as it's correct and noteworthy. --Ebnielsen (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike! You recently blocked Silvermine Guild Arts Center (talk · contribs) for violating username policy because it is the name of an organization. I believe SGAC (talk · contribs) is the same editor, who created Silvermine Guild Arts Center. Given the context, I believe the username violates the username policy for the same reason. Singularity42 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have counseled Kidfit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding conflict of interest and created pschooled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for their use. Fred Talk 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, nice profile pic. I find myself unappreciative of your vibrant post to my talk page. I will attempt an explanation. My post to the $20 bill page is done so in a way as to preserve the original text (added by whomever) that "These claims have been demonstrated to be either coincidental or contrived." That statement was cited with a lone reference to Snopes. My edit attempts to clarify what was a blanket (and dismissive) statement. Snopes is merely able to point out that the bill's design was added in 1998, but that in fact would only debunk one of two lines of thinking. I intend my edit to be a mild clarification of this. Jcool5 (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Snopes does not classify the email as a "hoax". It rates the truthfullness of the email with a White bullet (i.e. with no bullet at all; green - true, red - false, etc.), the rating for a veracity that is "unclassifiable". The wording of the current section gives the impression that the "conspiracy" in the email has been proven false, when that is not the case. Jcool5 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"An email that emerged after the events of 9/11 alleges that folding the twenty-dollar bill a certain way produces images which appear to be 9/11 related (specifically the World Trade Center and the Pentagon burning).[9]"
Jcool5 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Orange Mike. Pls take a look at Second coming. There's a user who is insisting on using colon (:) notation to move most paragraphs to the right in a completely non-standard manner. I've taken them out and he reverts. He e-mailed me that he thinks the indents make it easier to read with so many templates on the left. I don't want an edit war, and need your advice, please. Thanks! Afaprof01 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Orange Mike, thanks for the prompt action. I'm amazed at the number of requests that have appeared on your Talk page in the last 22 hours! Afaprof01 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to point out that you didn't notify MMPROMO (talk · contribs) of your block. I know that you always take care of such notifications, so this must've just been an oversight. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. If you have time, would you mind reviewing this? Cheers, m.o.p 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Orangemike, I noticed you proposed the above article for deletion. A google scholar and books search show real notability for the Irdeto standard. The article the way it is now is a bit of a mess, but the content there could be used for a good article on the Irdeto technology. I know, I know, ((sofixit)), and I'll make a start, but I didn't want to remove the PROD before getting started, and I don't have the time now, so I'd like to ask you to remove the PROD for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
wiki, wikify, wikilinks, redlinks, purplelinks, dufuslinks -- whatever -- I say tomaaaaaato, you say tomAAAAAto, big deal. -- Roger Zoel 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please keep your religious babble harassment quotations to yourself for which is not welcomed with me. If you please, I don't care to strike up any quaint conversations with you - Thanks -- Roger Zoel 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
you deleted my article and advised i used a subpage to prepare my article but i cant figure out how to open one. i tried reading through all the links but everytime i click on subpage in my contributions tab nothing happens. what am i doing wrong (C11rjs (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC))
thanks for the aditional help, the chances are it will become something, the ratings are increasing daily, yes maybe that quote was a bit of stupid quote but the producers and artists on that station arnt actually that bad. just remember when they are big that you were the one who deleted them from here before i had a chance to actually create a fully reasonable and justified article. thanks for your help anyway (C11rjs (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC))
I have counseled bagbagostomycovers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding conflict of interest and create a new account for them, stevecarmichael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am somewhat skeptical regarding this one and will pay extra attention. Fred Talk 01:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've unblocked this account since its user has acknowledged his mistake and made a promise to follow policy. I'll keep track of his new account & IP to make sure there's no more promotional activity. Let me know if you have any questions/concerns. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've written a test page of Bunkface at User:Kristalyamaki/Bunkface. How's it? Can it be used? Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
Please explain where there is any promotional material on the page Dean Hale that I created?
Ellen Shane (talk) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
Those comments were no where on the page !!! You put up for speedy deletion stating something about notability. I put those comments in the talk or discussion page as you requested stating why this guy, a well known Tampa citizen is notable. You should quit trying to read minds and just read the article and the news articles about this guy.
An encyclopedia just gives factual information bout a person. Which my page did.
No offense, but you should take your mind reading act to Vegas.
Ellen Shane (talk) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
Not sure what dictionary you are using to define promoting or promotional, but the first two sentences you quote are neither.
Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines state: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."
Considering the gentlemen just filed, I believe the common person (which Wikipedia caters to) would believe the two articles on Mr. Hale would be significant coverage and allow for future edits on Mr. Hale as time went by.
It seems that Wikipedia's standards do not get applied evenly or fairly across the board. Your personal history of deletion and that of other "administrators" would indicate that you get some type of sick joy in deleting articles that do not meet your personal standard. When clearly Wikipedia is not just about you. Please do not forget that fact.
You make your case by citing Wikipedia guidelines or standards, but the very guidelnes or standards that you quote do not show cause for article deletion.
Yes, I am an attorney, and if there were actual rules or guidelines that you must follow, you would legally not have a case to stand on.
However, it appears that Wikipedia does not care about uniformly policing their own guidelines or standards.
Again, your job is to read articles from a factual standpoint and not try to interpret (like a God) what the writers intent was or is.
Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Shane (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, no offense, but do you guys even read the articles before you delete? If you had bothered to read the actual article and not just skimmed before deletion, you would have seen that two reporters, Christian Wade and Jane Zink from Tampa Bays two major newspapers (Tampa Tribune and St. Pete Times) took the time to write articles about this guy. Not me. But I guess if two major newpapers find Mr. Hale notable, they are just plain crazy. If Wikipedia admnins do not see the notability, than obviously the two paid reporters and teh two major newspapers must be wrong.
Come on guys, be sensible before you try to defend your unnecessary deltions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen Shane (talk • contribs) 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, so the Wikipedia standard is "Does Orange Mike care?" If he does not care about Tampa Politics than obviously nobody else would. What kind of God complex are you on?
Laughable. You try to hold your self off as some type of elitist. Very funny.
Ellen Shane (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have come to expect nothing better.
Be consistent guys. You somehow thought the previous incumbent notable enough to be on Wikipedia (Shawn Harrisson), but not the current incumbent. Standards. What standards? Nothing but random enforcement.
Your inconsistancy is consistent.
Ellen Shane (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Ellen Shane Ellen Shane (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I had received a comment in my first review that my article looks like an advertisement. I have attempted to rewrite the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fiberlink/sandbox) with an encyclopedic tone. Can you please review my article? If there are any sections which appear to be still like an advertising effort, please point out that sections and give appropriate examples. I would like to identify my mistake and rectify it. I am here to stay and would like to contribute more to wiki writing.
Thank you.. Fiberlink (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi ... can you please unprotect Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation so I can apply "#REDIRECT The Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation" to it? I've created the first article, with multipe refs reflecting its notability. The second format of it is currently in protected status because you deleted it (as NN, though I think a google search review of mentions of it addresses that concern). Especially now, given its recent mentions in the news w/the Fort Hood shootings, this is an important org for us to have on WP IMHO. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[10] Kittybrewster ☎ 11:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Orangemike, This requests that you take off the flags you put on the "George Bradt" article. If I'm reading the various comments right, the general consensus seems to be that the article should not be deleted, and has already been improved to the point of acceptability. Gbradt (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Mike, I think you may have been a bit hasty in deleting the "Outlaw Preachers" article. Your reason in the deletion log was A7, but I was able to find the Google cache of the article and it looks pretty significant to me. "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance." Although I think the group is important for other reasons, I want to point out that Jay Bakker (son of Jim and Tammy Faye) is one of the founding members of the group. I appreciate your deletionist zeal, I agree that there are many pointless articles here, but I don't think this is one of them. Thanks, Josh Paddingtonjbear (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Orangemike, This requests that you take off the flag you put on the page about me. If I'm reading the various comments right, the general consensus seems to be that I'm a valuable enough contributor to have around. Gbradt (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
What else needs to happen for you to remove the flags you put on the Onboarding, George Bradt, and GBradt pages? I'll check here or Gbradt talk or you can send me an email at gbradt@primegenesis.com Gbradt (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi ... just wanted to make sure you didn't overlook my comment on NEFA above. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Smosh. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Orangemike, This requests that you take off the flags you put on the Onboarding article. If I'm reading the various comments right, the general consensus seems to be that the article should not be deleted, but should be improved and that those improvements can be handled through the normal editing process. Gbradt (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea on how else to contact you, so I am hoping this will work. Please leave the page on me (The Earl of Jersey) alone now. My knowledge of my life is my source. It hadn't been released in a public forum so I could not "verify" it (although it will now be shortly so). I appreciate you cannot verify I am who I say I am, but at the same time perhaps you could understand that not EVERYTHING is verifiable precisely BECAUSE I have no way of verifying who I am! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.124.68 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't seen this, this user is requesting an unblock. Triplestop x3 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your somewhat mystifying comment. How else could I refer to a convention named SciFi on the Rock IV? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, but why did you block her? She was attempting to get her username changed and it looks as though her article had the potential for notability. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Orangemike, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Anne King Gregorie has been removed. It was removed by John Z with the following edit summary 'rm prod; prof with privately printed biography, journal article and encylopedia entry on her, enough for [[WP:BIO]]'. Please consider discussing your concerns with John Z before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, you may well not want to get involved in this, but as a total outsider and a wikipedian whose opinions I respect, I'd quite like your opinion of this. I don't think I'd even heard of RfC a week ago (perhaps I'm just lucky) but the reaction of some of the commenters suggests that it isn't considered as straightforward a request for comments on dubious behaviour as the name makes it seem. Some editors seem to think I'm overreacting by requesting comments at all (and at least one attributes it to malice). If you have no desire to get involved, a word here or on my talkpage would be as valuable to me as an opinion given there. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Orangemike, what can I do to persuade you to remove the remaining flags you put on the Onboarding, George Bradt and my user pages? Recall you had flagged them for possible deletion. During the ensuing discussions, several people weighed in with changes to improve the pages. At the end of the discussions, administrators closed the deletion discussions with the decision to keep the pages. Your flags remain, but are out of date. Seems like it's appropriate for you to re-look at the pages and either provide new comments (always room for further improvement) or remove your flags. Happy to discuss here or on my talk page. Gbradt (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you just salted Adamantius (theological journal) and Adamantius (journal) was salted a while ago. Therefore, you may be interested in Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina". Alastair is tenacious... --Crusio (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You were in Win Ben Stein's Money with Ben Stein, who was in Planes Trains and Automobiles with Kevin Bacon.
Doesn't that mean your Bacon Number is 2? — Bdb484 (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you're keeping an eye on the copyvio situation at Jamil Ghanim, but the offending editor is continuing to revert with minimal changes to the text, which continues to bear a very strong resemblance to the source text. I've left a message about edit warring on his talk page, but I've found that such admonitions have not been well received.
Hello Mike. This is User:Ovnion. I tried to add a term "Cellint" and you deleted it. Is this the right place to leave you messages? can I leave you a message in my discussion page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovnion (talk • contribs) — Ovnion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:26, 2 December 2009
You PRODded this as NN and in due course I deleted it. An IP has now appeared asking for it, so I have undeleted it and given him TL;DR advice here about notability and independent sources. I told him I would notify you and you might well take it to AfD, but perhaps we should give him a bit of time to see if he can make anything of it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I noticed you recently deleted Moelis & Company and I feel like we have had this conversation before. Apologies if I missed something i have been crazy busy - but it looked like this was a speedy delete and I would have contested that had i caught it in time. I just looked at the cached version of this article [11] and was having a difficult time understanding how this is G11. The content that I am looking at while limited in value and not well referenced is not blatant advertising. "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Having spent some work on getting List of investment banks in shape, I feel like both Moelis & Co. and Ken Moelis are both going to pass any notability test easily. Instead of recreating the page, I would appreciate it if you would restore the page. If you then want to propose an AfD, we can go down that route. Better yet, I can do a little work to get it going in the right direction so you don't need to spend time going in that direction. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike - Got any guidance on how to move forward on this? People have addressed the issues you raised on the Onboarding page, but you've gone quiet on us. If you've got other comments, let us know. If you're OK with the changes, how about either removing the flags or asking someone else to do so. Not sure why you or anyone else would want the page to sit there in limbo. Gbradt (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike - Same points as above for the George Bradt page. Again, it seems like your comments were addressed. Let us know what to do next. Gbradt (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I just wanted to let you know that you seem like a cool guy. I have had alot of bad expieriences on Wikipedia, and no one really likes me. Do you think I can ever ebuild my rep. I trust youe opinion because you are an expierinced admin. Just look ay my user history, and tell me whether I can ever be acceptted as a user here. I haven't found anyone who believes in me. I don't even believe in me. But I hope that somehow, someway I will gain acceptance here... please Mike. I need your help! Uncle Tech (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike, Thanks so much for your input. It was very helpful. I work for Cellint, and I saw a page of competitor (Airsage) in Wikipedia, and tried to do the same, but much more modest. Not for Advertisement, only facts. Apparently I didn't do it well. Please let me know if the following text will be fine (I'm fine in changing it in any way you suggest):
Cellint is a provider of traffic information technology and services. By extracting anonymous signaling data from cellular network, Cellint's platform, called TrafficSense, is correlating each mobile phone to the road it is traveling on, and measuring its speed every few hundred meters in real time. Cellint's HQ is based in Israel, and its systems are deployed in the US, Europe and Asia Pacific.
Cellint's technology is using pattern matching analysis to locate the mobile phones, based on ground truth reference database, rather then using triangulation, as most mobile location technologies. The database is generated by driving the roads and recording the signaling sequences. At independent evaluations of GDOT the data quality of the TrafficSense was matched successfully against road sensors I all speed ranges. This was the 1st time ever, world wide, that an FCD technology was successful in emulating road sensors' information in such a test.
Many thanks Ovnion --Ovnion (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Orangemike, You recently removed the page Propro and we would like to discuss the reasons of the removal with you. The page was still under construction and clearly marked as such (using the newpage tag). Moreover, when we were selected for speedy deletion by a bot, we had put the hangon tag, and explained in the user page why it should not be removed.
In our opinion there was enough background material on the page to identify the subject. Just because you don't understand something does not mean that you should delete it. Clearly, without reading background material you cannot expect the layman to understand the content of a scientific page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdiem (talk • contribs) — Drdiem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
In case you are not watching, please see User talk:Alastair Haines#Gruppo. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Recommend you look into this bit of nastiness. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This user has already been cautioned about COI editing. While he's new, and a bit spammy, avoiding redundant caution templates helps Wikipedia be less bitey. Thanks! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
You might look here. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Armando Gutierrez. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tikiwont (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thank you for deleting my user page. I dont think admins are given enough appreciation for what they do. Thanks again. Ikip (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
So the other administrators have reached a consensus. I take it now you will stop the vandalism of my page? Or continue to do so, no matter, the 10-14 age demographic on Wikipedia is lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaferk (talk • contribs) 03:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no such word as deletionist, Mike. I find it really, genuinely upsetting that someone with whom I share so many political and ideological viewpoints is so ruthless in deleting valid articles. You might want to remove the anarcho-syndicalist flag from your page and replace it with a picture of Uncle Joe. Also, don't feel bad about wearing orange on St Pat's day, instead why don't you wear orange and spend the day in Kilburn. By the end of the day you will be unable to delete any more articles for a while. veghead (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mike. Can you please tell me how can I suggest speedy deletion of a term which is pure advertisement (it is "Wireless Signal Extraction" which is a name of a specific technology of a specific company, and especially shouldn't appear at the FCD section). Thanks --Ovnion (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mike, Welcome to Wikipedia! You might like to reconsider putting patronising templates on long standing (although maybe low activity) users talk pages without wondering if you aren't someone who needs a bit of a re-education regarding the principles behind Wikipedia. I don't appreciate your comments, and as a user of Wikipedia, my value judgments are of equal relevance to yours. Please don't continue to refer to yourself as an anarchist until you understand:
Love, Me - veghead (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Per Spartaz's request, I am notifying you that this discussion that you participated in has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy (2nd nomination) in the hopes to gain a more fair consensus due to the participation of three sock puppet accounts in the earlier discussion. The three sock accounts that checkuser confirmed are the same person voted to delete or redirect and made multiple edits to the discussion which closed as "redirect" and therefore may have created a false impression of consensus by vote-stacking. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have counseled dashuaslabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with respect to conflict of interest and created the account Hand Selected (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for him to use to edit with. Fred Talk 01:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I took your suggestion and I have been starting articles about members of the Wisconsin State Legislature. It has not been the incumbents-I am not into political science-but it has been those who were in office but left the legislature. There were a few that were convicted of convicted of corruption. I suggested to one of the editors about getting an article started about the Wisconsin recall law-Wisconsin Constitution Article XIII, section 12. I also work on articles about people connected with Wisconsin Territory mainly the territory secretary and started a few articles about a few Roman Catholic diocesan bishops along the way-hope you are doing well-Thanks-RFD (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Adph unblock on hold. Sole Soul (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the block on account AMglobal (talk · contribs). Hope you are doing well, Cirt (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see my note here. I've not been able to find any reliable sources backing up any claims in the article, and not for lack of effort. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your sage advice on my conduct, which I believe to be far more offensive and patronising than my original comments to you. I disagree with you, and wish to highlight that my original beef was as a result of you asking for the deletion of an article I consider to be totally legitimate. You may not know about bhuna in the US, but it's a very well known dish in the UK (from where I originate). Being a "deletionist" is not something to be proud of. veghead (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday you have deleted my page about Ibertest Internacional, because its "marketing" page. But other pages like "Instron", a company that are in the same market like Ibertest continues in Wikipedia...¿whats de reason? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibertestint (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
CAn you close the afd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. IMOP looks to be a wp:snow close..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have declined speedy deletion of this article. The article clearly states that the band has released 6 albums and won several significant awards, and is therefore not a suitable case for speedy deletion. Several examples of significant coverage also exist, some of which I have listed on the article's talk page.--Michig (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Is it normal, that Hell in a Bucket notifie that "that time is not now" at 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) than the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article ? And i would like to change the titttle in the case of Ophélie Bretnacher... best regards Raymondnivet (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondnivet (talk • contribs)
Wondering why it was deleted. They are one of the top furniture retailers in WV and certainly deserve to be included as a Furniture retailer in the United States category —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmatthewwells (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the help. Removed my phone number, enabled my email address in my preferences. There's one other issue I would appreciate some help on. I've been working to get the wiki StarChase (my place of work) updated and recently Mike put some other "problem boxes" at the top of the page. I sure would hate for someone to put that page up for deletion. If you guys have any suggestions on how to get the StarChase page up to Mike's starndards, I would be greatful--Johnmatthewwells 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi MoP, I was doing a bit of tidying up of Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching, and the entry for Permethius says that you are coaching them.
I have contacted BarkingFish, but had no reply yet (but their last edit was in October). If you are admin coaching them, could you please remove their entry on the Requests page, and add an entry on the Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status page? If you are not coaching them, could you remove the "admin comment" on their entry?
On the message at their talk page, I basically asked them if they could do the same - and if they are no longer interested in receiving coaching, if they could remove their name from the list.
It would be nice to get this sorted out - it's only a little thing, but it'd be good to get the list properly tidied up.
I have also suggested here that if someone has not updated their "last visited this page" date in 6 months (or if they have been inactive for 4 months) that their name should be removed from the list (at the moment, if they haven't visited in 6 weeks, their name is move from the current requests to the older requests.
At the moment, their are about 100 "older' requests - removing those more than 6 months old would leave about 20!
If you have any comment on this suggestion, please feel free to leave a message on the thread!
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
On Dec 7 and Dec 8 they deleted the Mike Cox page information and articles and links whole cloth, destroying what you had fixed as of Nov 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjoeyjimmybobby (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sheldon Pinnell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheldon Pinnell. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike,
First and foremost, I apologize for violating any of Wikipedia's user policies, as it was not my intent. Please allow me to briefly address these violations as you've bought them to my attention below.
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Subliminal stimuli. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"
While it may seem promotional in nature - the film "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" - and its subsequent release, culminates a 5 year long study and production on the subject with over 30 renowned authorities in their respective fields from across the country. For a complete list of interviewees please see: http://www.programmingthenation.com/interviews.shtml. Many of these experts, (and their work), is cited on the Wikipedia article on Subliminal Stimuli. This documentary is the first ever produced on the topic and is non-biased and subjective in its analysis. Being that subliminal stimuli itself can only be experienced visually and audibly, the film is notable and deserves mention, to further educate those interested in the subject who might only have been able to read about it in the past.
One might argue that a multitude of items added to this, (and other topics), on Wikipedia is "promotional" - simply by the verifiable nature that it exists and his been included. I'm wondering why other "verifiable" info should be excluded when it only serves the reader to be aware of its existence?
I'm also wondering if it Wikipedia might consider editing (rather than deleting), my addition of to this article?
"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Subliminal stimuli. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"
I don't believe I actually added "commentary" or "personal analysis" to this Wiki article. I simply mentioned the existence of this documentary, the topics it covers, and cited the film website as a reference - all of which I have attempted to verify as best as possible.
Thanks for your consideration to my request and for all the amazing work you and the other editors do to make Wikipedia the best possible resource on the Internet.
Kind regards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by IgniteTheMind (talk • contribs) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mike,
Please explain what is "promotional advocacy" about my original addition to the article on "Subliminal stimuli" below:
"In 2009, a feature documentary entitled "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" directed by Jeff Warrick, was released. The film examines the alleged history of subliminal messaging in American mass-media - categorically exploring issues such as the subconscious mind, the James Vicary experiment, subliminal research, backward masking in rock music, and asserted claims of subliminals in film, advertising, politics, U.S. Psychological Operations and Project HAARP in Alaska."
How is this considered an "opinion" of the film?
Regarding citation by "impartial" and "reliable sources" as "noteworthy" and "relevant" to the article - what about the following:
1. Taylor, Dr. Eldon, (Mind Programming: From Persuasion and Brainwashing to Self-Help and Practical Metaphysics) Published by Hay House - 2009 Page 22: "Are others intentionally manipulating us for gain? In the documentary Programming the Nation, producer Jeff Warrick leaves it all up to you. 18 I'll do the same. 18. Warrick, J. Dir. 2008. Programming the Nation. Ignite Productions - although this is only a passing mention, Dr. Taylor was interviewed for our film and is a respected authority on the subject. His previous book, "CHOICES AND ILLUSIONS" is a New York Times Bestseller on the topic. Why is none of his research and publications on the subject included in the article in question?
2. IMDB for the film at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1023345/ - while not notable, IMDB does require verification and updates as to release dates to avoid being deleted from their film database.
3. Link to screening at 2008 Santa Cruz Film Festival: http://santacruz.bside.com/2008/films/programmingthenation_santacruz2008;jsessionid=82C79D7011757DC5067BF18500693825 - I believe, IS notable. Santa Cruz Film Festival is a 501c non-profit organization going on its 9th annual international film festival, showcasing over 50 films from around the world. The fact that "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" was also chosen as the Closing Night screening as "A Work in Progress" is also notable.
4. Link to interview with filmmaker on Randall Libero's - Spirit of Film Conversations: http://visionary-entertainment.blogspot.com/2009/07/programming-nation-with-producer-jeff.html - I believe, IS ALSO notable. While the link above only contains a brief written introduction to the film, it also contains a one hour audio interview with the show host, Randall Libero, and the filmmaker, Jeff Warrick, discussing the documentary.
5. www.digitalmediafactory.com - IS notable as it illustrates the collaboration created between production companies to produce the film. This also demonstrates verifiability - as it obviously took many individuals, enormous resources, and capital contribution to bring to fruition.
6. Link to Santa Cruz Sentinel story about Digital Media Factory which also mentions the production of "Programming The Nation?" here: http://www.digitalmediafactory.net/company/press/article.php?artid=70 - while this only gives a passing mention of the documentary, it focuses directly on the co-production company linked in #5 - a two page article in the Sunday addition of a credible newspaper - which is definitely notable.
7. http://www.goodtimessantacruz.com/santa-cruz-community-calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2009/11/14/52471/-/MzViM2IwYTI0NjViZDI2ODkxYjc2ODVmMjA2ODBkMGQ=/advance-film-screening-of-programming-the-nation.html - is a passing mention, but printed in a weekly newspaper and relevant to show how the film is being released to audiences.
8. http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/05.07.08/cover-0819.html - this is NOTABLE and states:
"The festival closes on Saturday, May 17, with a work in progress by Santa Cruz filmmaker Jeff Warrick. Programming the Nation? picks up where the 1970s bestseller Subliminal Seduction left off, only with a more contemporary and sophisticated analysis. Beyond the skulls in the whiskey ads lurks a more subtle form of manipulation; Warrick examines how it plays out in advertising, political campaigns and other forms of media. The 7:30pm screening is followed by a Q&A with Warrick, attorney August Bullock (www.thesecretsalespitch.com) and Media Watch's Ann Simonton on the prevalence of below-the-radar imagery and stereotypes in film, music and television."
9. Television Interview with Matrix News Network and Filmmaker Jeff Warrick: http://www.matrixnewsnetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2167:major-ed-dames-and-jeffrey-warrick&catid=109:past-guests-2009&Itemid=289 - while the above only contains a brief written introduction to the film, it is also extremely NOTABLE as it describes a 30 min. televised broadcast interview with the filmmaker that went out to over 30 million households throughout the US, UK and Europe.
Would you like more sources, Mike?
Would it help to have others who have contributed to the film, such as interviewees like Noam Chomsky, (MIT Professor of Linguistics/ Author / Media Critic / Activist), Amy Goodman, (Host of Democracy Now! / Author of "Static" and "Breaking The Sound Barrier"), Dennis Kucinich, (Congressman, 10th District of Ohio), Diane E. Watson, (Congresswoman, 33rd District of California in LA), Wilson Bryan Key, (Author of "Subliminal Seduction"), Howard Shevrin, Ph.D., (Researcher / Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan), Mark Crispin Miller, (Author of "Boxed In: The Culture of TV" and NYU Professor / Media Critic), Douglas Rushkoff, (Author of "Coercion" and "Media Virus"), David Fricke, (Senior Editor of Rolling Stone Magazine), Hilton A. Green, (Asst. Director to Alfred Hitchock, "PSYCHO"), Jerry Mander, (Author of "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" / Director of International Forum on Globalization), William Poundstone, (Author of "Big Secrets" series), Mark Mothersbaugh, (Founding member of DEVO and Mutato Muzika), Geoff Tate, (Lead Vocals, QUEENSRYCHE), Andy Johns, (Rock Recording Engineer on Led Zeppelin II, III, IV, and Physical Graffiti), Dr. Anthony Greenwald, (Professor of Psychology, Universtiy of Washington), Richard Beggs, (Academy Award Winning Sound Designer on "Apocalypse Now"), Christopher Coppola, (Founder of EARS XXI New Media Studios), Dr. Nick Begich, (Author of "Controlling the Human Mind" and "Angels Don't Play This HAARP"), August Bullock, (Author of "The Secret Sales Pitch"), Ann Simonton, (Former SI Swimsuit Cover Model / Founder of MEDIA WATCH), and Col. John B. Alexander (Ret.), (Author of "Future War" and "Winning The War") - cite the film and verify the "noteworthiness" of its inclusion on the subject matter?
While we're on the subject - how about including in the article on "Subliminal stimuli" - mention of the August 4, 1984 testimony at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials of the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing was presided over by the Hon. Dan Glickman, chairperson of the subcommittee. The title of the hearing was “Subliminal Communication Technology.”
See: http://alpha.fdu.edu/~gradford/subliminal.html - A Congressional Matter
"On August 6, 1984, testimony was given at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials of the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing was presided over by the Hon. Dan Glickman, chairperson of the subcommittee. The title of the hearing was “Subliminal Communication Technology.” Glickman’s opening remarks immediately framed the subject matter in sinister overtones: “This subcommittee has kind of made it a theme this year to explore in addition to the other areas of our jurisdiction those things which concern the public in a kind of Orwellian sense as a result of the nomenclature of this year 1984.”
Glickman cited the example of subliminal tapes and expressed concern that subliminal messages could be used to alter behavior. He said, “Clearly we need to take a closer look at the use of subliminal communication technology given the serious moral, ethical and legal implication posed by some of these recent advances.”
So-called experts testified with both excitement and alarm that subliminal messages could be used to encourage good driving or to manipulate an individual’s thoughts. Yet the “advances” referred to by Glickman and the “research” alluded to by experts simply did not and still do not rise above the level of what-if speculations. The conversation borders on the comical as the elected officials and witnesses indulge in what Glickman refers to as “twilight zone” implications. If this is the tone set by congressman and expert witnesses, it is not surprising to find that others speak in similar terms.
The reference to “The Twilight Zone” is indicative of another side to our talk about subliminal perception. It implies that we shouldn’t take this stuff too seriously, just as we shouldn’t take the plots seen on “The Twilight Zone” seriously, which, as we all know, is the stuff of fantasy and science-fiction. But Glickman cannot be sure it does not have some reality to it. He said, “Given the rapid advance in computer technology in this country, as well as psychological research — much of which is being done by the Defense Department — I think it is incumbent upon us in Congress to at least explore the issue to see how widespread it is and see if anything needs to be done about it.” What is this “psychological research” being carried out by the Defense Department? What is this “rapid advance in computer technology”? What is going on behind the scenes, perhaps in places like the legendary Area 51?"
or http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7226007/Subliminal-information-theory-revisited-casting.html
"Congressional hearings in 1984 had led to the most significant source of scientific controversy, which was simply whether a subliminal message could affect behavior. Lloyd Silverman said yes; Howard Shevrin was doubtful (Taylor, Sadana, & Bey, 1990). In the Judas Priest case, Shevrin switched positions based on newer research and agreed that the subliminal "Do it" command was a causal factor (Taylor, 1995).
or http://www.brainspeak.com/brainspeak-technology/brainspeak-subliminals
"A 1984 Congressional Report prepared by the House Committee on Science and Technology confirmed that subliminal messages are recorded by the brain and called upon later, as needed."
There is also Congressional transcripts of the hearing above as well as CNN footage - included in the documentary "PROGRAMMING THE NATION?" - that verify its existence and need to be included in the topic of "Subliminal Stimuli".
So, it seems to me that your article on this subject is missing much more info than the simple inclusion of this documentary film in question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by IgniteTheMind (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by IgniteTheMind (talk • contribs)