User talk:Orangemike: Difference between revisions

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

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

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

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

Archives

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

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

• Exclaimer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hey, this user has appealed their block on unblock-en-l. I have explained the corpname issue, but after looking at the draft article she was working on, I am not satisfied that it meets G11. COI issues aside, can you elaborate on exactly what problems you had with the article content? Thanks, --Chris (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the obvious promotional intent as indicated by the user's name and identity, I was particularly unimpressed by the line "received awards for Microsoft compatibility, including "Works with Windows Server 2008 R2"." Calling something like that an "award" is a pretty telling sign. The "article" in general is mostly a product line listing, and the "sources" primarily press releases. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. If I ever get a reply from the user I will raise those issues. --Chris (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to have it clarified (to know for again) in what way it was not constructive - I had edited my own comment. (ref. to discussion about illustrations on cum shot). 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you edited a comment by a totally different IP, 82.18.164.15. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know why that is happening, I'll leave it as it is. But I am the same user. It is allocating me two different IPs. one beginning with 62. and one beginning with 82. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please un-delete the page so I can add references to Billboard, and other sites that will verify for you that this man really did produce these albums and sold over 1.9 million copies? Thanks.

Elitefirm (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draft articles should be created in a sandbox like User:Elitefirm/GrimRhodes. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orangemike. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Harrison Nash, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle didn't finish the nomination. Fixed for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orangemike. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Marie Rutkoski, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: PROF is enough for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  09:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially you banned me the actual employee of Tau Epsilon Phi. The individual that should have been banned was Nate3k and Teps4justice. They have no affiliation with the organization. Please assist.

To Whom it May Concern,

My name is Clinton Hasenberg and I am the Director of Communications for Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity, Inc. I am writing to you as an official representative of Tau Epsilon Phi National Fraternity, Inc. regarding the entry in Wikipedia located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Epsilon_Phi .

The information that is being listed on the site is lacking in accuracy and legitimacy. I recently established an account TEPNational with Wikipedia to address the issues at hand and remove the inaccurate statements. Each time that the statements are removed by me they are placed back on the entry.

Tau Epsilon Phi is a non-profit fraternal organization. The information about our organization is constantly changing. The citations referenced on several of the Wikipedia headings are from over three years ago. As a matter of fact, the individual(s) posting this information represent themselves with the login as TEPs4justice and Nate3K. The individual currently posting this information is currently under litigation for Trademark infringement and other charges such as posting defamatory statements about Tau Epsilon Phi as well as its board of directors.

The individual(s) posting this slanted information is using Wikipedia a division of Wikimedia as a forum for misrepresentation and posting incomplete and erroneous information.

Please examine, the heading Broughty v Hassenberg. Usage of such heresay statements as “determine its fate”, “is being charged” and “will decide the fate of TEP” are not statements of fact but rather statements of opinion. The entire heading itself is self-serving to the poster and not factual in nature.

The heading Grand Chapter is also completely erroneous and inaccurate. The information regarding our internal corporate bylaws is not public information. It is not posted anywhere and not subject to interepatation by someone posting such information that may or may not even be a member of our organization. This heading needs to be completely removed.

The Grand Council and NCCM headings are also outdated and inaccurate and need to be removed. The reference to www.archive.org is only a small snapshot in time in this instance 2005 and 2007 respectively. The paragraph under the heading was written in the present tense as though everything “is” the way it is described. This makes the entire heading false and without merit.

As the official Director of Communications for Tau Epsilon Phi National Fraternity, Inc. I humbly ask Wikimedia to please delete those headings I have referred to as well as place an edit freeze on the Tau Epsilon Phi Wikipedia entry located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Epsilon_Phi.

This will allow our organization to read through the current content and publish factual information about our alive organization and trademarked name Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity Inc.

The Wikimedia vision statement states Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.

The Wikipedia entry defines knowledge as expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

Please observe the desire for Wikipedia to freely share in knowledge. Knowledge is factual in nature based on expertise or skills acquired by a person through experience or education. With that being said statements of opinion such as those I described above by individual(s) who may or may not be members, are damaging to our 100 year organizational reputation.

I look forward to your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Clinton Hasenberg Director of Communications Tau Epsilon Phi National Fraternity, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.145.18 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Tau Epsilon Phi, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not ever written any other editor with such anger or even expressed it before and this is personal. If someone else has "vandalized" IMO the Ron Holloway talk page, it was the person who had very negative things to say in a very public manner. Being unwilling to contact the other offender, since half the time, when they use the IP address it's a waste of time, I chose to blank out the offensive and sexist comments about myself. NOW I strongly suspect it is you but again-- you are a waste of time. I, on the other hand, do know Ron Holloway. I have known him for 30 years but we are not buddies. When I saw his first mistakes on his own Wikipedia page, I contacted him, and adopted him as a new editor, but his travels with various bands have led to little contact and after a discussion with him online today, I offered to help again, and saw the blasphemy on his talk page. SHAME on you for calling yourself a "Senior Editor", seeing a needy article like that and instead of rolling up your sleeves, leaving filth on a talk page. I am not a novice and I spend my time doing my best to assist this encylopedia rather than defame it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The filth was put on that page by some anonymous vandal, not by me. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think it was appropriate to give Leah a vandalism warning? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I hereby deeply apologize, Leah. I did not notice that the material you'd deleted from the talk page was grossly inappropriate and vilely sexist; I only saw the deletion of language from a talk page, a perennial problem in an article that draws controversy. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I loved your reply at this AFD and was wondering if you had further witticisms or insights since the article rescue attempt. JJB 06:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, Orangemike … FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonja Blue … I noticed that you tried to {{Prod}} it. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{03:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

I appreciate the apology- it was a real surprise to see that crap on a talk page, in part, because I really don't interact with more than a dozen editors on a regular basis, preferring cleanup work on musician's biographical pages while I plod along on a handful of other articles I edit and add photographs and the like. I can't imagine how I could have pissed anybody off.. and I know it wasn't Ron Holloway. Which brings me to ask: what to do about his article? When I first noticed his edits I was too new to adopt anyone, although I got permission from User:Aleta at the time, who was an Admin. He clearly has a wealth of references that can be inserted into a well-written article, but he hasn't been good at learning simple things like inline referencing and his "armchair discussion" approach to "his story" is contrary to an encyclopedia. He kept promising finally to contact me in person just because he freaks out at the POV tags all over the thing. I've been trying to prune it a bit, but something must give-- and he is a notable musician with a BLP! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Twistermister be denied access to their own talk page? It seems to me that editing it is merely an excuse to drop obscenities in edit summaries. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an unreferenced tag to a plot section isn't unheard of, but it is unusual. What's the problem and how can I help solve it? Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the interminable discussion at Talk:Regulate (song). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your speedy deletion of this article. Since when was coverage in the Houston Chronicle not an indication of importance/significance, along with the many other readily available sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are about Wicked not about the actress. Why not create something more substantive in a sandbox before recreating this semi-unsourced BLP? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not restore an article that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion and let our normal collaborative editing processes work? I have no interest in writing an article about this subject, but do have an interest in building this encyclopedia, rather than in disrupting such building. And did you really check that all of those 128 sources are about Wicked rather than the actress? If so I have to commend you on your record-breaking speed-reading ability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced, but you're a good, solid editor, so I've restored it at your request, Phil. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this. I hope this was not your intention. I don't have anything else to add except that you may wish to revise your comment further. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within the context, I feel that the characterization was not out of line, but a description of his behavior. I will accept your criticism. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in an RfC about vandalism spaces. There is an RfC about them at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Userspace Vandalism Sandboxes. Cunard (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of Alexandra Powers is needed on her wikipedia page. Would any of this pictures be acceptable?: http://www.aveleyman.com/ActorCredit.aspx?ActorID=14027 http://www.tvspielfilm.de/stars/star/alexandra-powers,1571496,ApplicationGallery.html?page=5 http://www.flixster.com/actor/alexandra-powers Please let me know if any of these photos are acceptable for her wikipedia page. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are copyrighted. You would have to find us a non-copyrighted photograph, or one whose creator is willing to license under a suitable Creative Commons license. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunamispower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is requesting unblock, claiming his/her name is not promotional. That seems entirely likely to me (see Dunamis, btw). If you're around soon, could you consider an unblock? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment there, but I'm still confused. The user has only written about Koku Adomdza - and the website you linked to is about a Ronda Brown - but this user hasn't mentioned Brown, as far as I can see by looking at both the current edits, the deleted edits and there are no oversighted edits either. Unless there's something I'm missing, I see no evidence that this editor has any connection to the few websites about "Dunamis Power" that I could find! Your further thoughts would be most welcome -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the comment on my talk page, I told the user the same thing here and here. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the user as having an appropriate username, as the username doesn't seem to be a problem. However, I've also left a note for the user on recommended reading for first article creation and recommended WP:AFC. I hope I didn't act too soon; get back to me if it's an especially big issue. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dana Award. But nothing has changed as a result of the blocks...trying to edit anything they've added or want to add is just as useless as before. I could sure use some advice. Flowanda | Talk 07:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

???? None of the "Keep" advocates in that discussion are blocked sockpuppets! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...maybe this discussion will help clarify that there were more sockpuppets found on Wikipedia, or am I still wrong? And double oops...I just saw DGG's comment. Flowanda | Talk 20:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. Flowanda | Talk 07:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemike,

I'm interested in your concerns regarding the Saul Hertz article. Can you share them with me so I can work on addressing them? Thanks Jabrody24 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the footnotes, see Wikipedia:CITE#How to format citations; you also need more of them, preferably written by somebody other than the subject's widow (see WP:RS). As to wikifying: many of the key concepts in the article don't have wikilinks; the list of honors is ill-formatted; etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged several issues with the Imagineering Academy article. However, you have not elucidated those issues on the talk page, so I can't go ahead and address them. Could you please do so? Thank you!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments so far. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as a routine matter of creating disambiguation pages of format "Lastname House" where there are many places of that name, i went to start Madison House at the redlink and am directed to deletion review, where i am directed to find administrator who set protection. I see you were administrator deleting an apparently COI / commercial version most recently, and I presume are the admin setting protection to prevent recurrence. There was previously Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison House also, leading to a previous deletion. Statements there were the article or disambiguation could be recreated easily, which I would now like to do.

Items for possible mention in the disambiguation page, potentially as main entries or in "see also" capacity, include the following wikipedia-notable NRHP-listed places:

• Madison House (Watsonville, California)
• Allen-Madison House, North Kingstown, Rhode Island
• Eutaw-Madison Apartment House Historic District, Baltimore, Maryland
• Madison Barracks, Sackets Harbor, New York
• Madison County Sheriff's House and Jail, Edwardsville, Illinois
• Madison Farm Historic and Archeological District, Elliston, Virginia
• Madison Gas and Electric Company Powerhouse, Madison, Wisconsin
• Madison Ranch, Rapid City, South Dakota
• Madison Seminary and Home, Madison, Ohio
• Pap Madison Cabin, Rapid City, South Dakota

It would also be appropriate to link to homes of U.S. president James Madison and to add other items such as to see also: Madison Hotel (disambiguation). Could you unprotect and notify me, or just create the article? I will watchlist the redlink now so will see if u do. I will then develop the dab. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced to partial protection; but I'm not sure all those redlinked items you list will qualify for articles of their own. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Right you don't need to be sure about those, and in fact they are not yet adequately supported by supporting bluelinks as required by MOS:DABRL. How and whether they are to be included or not is a matter for further separate discussion if needed, at Talk:Madison House, after i finish with the dab. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, it was a pleasure meeting and working with you this past weekend. Perhaps we will work together again in the future--until then, best wishes! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this request for help Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Original_Research_by_editor_Esoglou_on_the_Roman_Catholic.E2.80.93Eastern_Orthodox_theological_differences_article. And it has been ignored. Just like this previous one. [1] Why are these posting being ignored? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the whole thing so incomprehensible that I am unable to contribute anything to the discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could I simplify the context? So that I might minimize the obfuscation of it? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that HJM has afforded other users a much wider latitude on their user page, encouraging good-faith changes (see User:HJ Mitchell/Editnotice). –xeno^talk 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For info, article has been recreated.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion per G11. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I hope you are doing well. I started an article on Barbara Thompson (Wisconsin politician). She was Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction for 8 years. Please let myself know what you think-her obituary just appear. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This bot here is editing logged out and I see that its block log indicates that an admin has blocked it before for doing the very same thing it's doing now. Just a heads up. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been lurking since August 31, and it was "relisted" on September 8 with no further comments. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 8#Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m. I think it needs to be put down as it's a dead horse being dragged through the murky swamp now. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Tonyblairproj. Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made that tutorial! Located at User:Quiddity/User style customization tutorial. Most of the examples have a screenshot, to demonstrate the output. It's still a bit more complicated, at a glance, than I would like; but I'm not sure what could be trimmed or simplified. (It needs a screencast!)

See if anything in there interests you, and let me know if it's useful, or if anything is still too obtuse. Ta. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction concerning my desire to create a Wikipedia article about Pariyatti, the nonprofit publishing house & bookstore where I have been working & volunteering for the past five years. I still have the feeling that Pariyatti is a borderline case - - I've found a few brief references to it in Wikipedia articles about the Buddhist Publication Society (BPS), S. N. Goenka, and Godwin Samaratne. I will continue to search the Web for other, more lengthy references to establish sufficient Notability to warrant an article about Pariyatti.

Would it be appropriate to link the reference to Pariyatti in Wikipedia's article about BPS to www.pariyatti.org ? In addition to publishing Pariyatti editions of some BPS books, Pariyatti has distribution rights for all BPS books in North America.

Pariyatti also has distribution rights for books published by the Pali Text Society (PTS) throughout North and South America and the Caribbean. Would it be appropriate to add a mention of that fact to the Wikipedia article about PTS? And could that mention be linked to www.pariyatti.org ?

A few bookstores are mentioned by name, with a brief description, in the Wikipedia article "Independent Bookstore". I hope to get Pariyatti included in that article. I'm still researching the best way to make that happen.

Thanks again for helping me get started.

By the way, I was a writer/editor for 25 years, and am confident of my ability to write in a neutral tone.

Starting in 1996 and for the next five years I was responsible for creating and maintaining www.ibm.com/storage. That's ancient history now, but I think I still have the ability to write for the Web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carljs27 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read WP:CORP closely. Dozens of passing mentions, links to books published by the PTS, etc., do not add up to the substantial coverage of Pariyatti in and of itself. Remember, notability is not contagious: one does not become notable by publishing notable works or notable authors, or selling to notable clients, or working for notable employers. (And no, putting in the links you suggest would not be acceptable; it would be spamlinking, a form of promotion we strictly forbid.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is objectionable about posting a link to an image file that is pertinent to a wikipedia article? Wikipedia articles contain hundreds of thousands of links to various source materials containing both words and pictures. The reader can see for himself or herself the owner of the picture inasmuch as the link directs the reader to the owner's posting that the owner chooses to make available to the public. The picture is not being moved or copied to wikipedia. The reader is just informed as to where to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Jeff Yo (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need actual illustrations in the article, not links which may or may not break down the next day. Our manual of style clearly states that illustrations added to articles should be actual images made available in Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons, not links to images stored outside of Wikimedia projects. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Britney_Stevens is the sister of Whitney_Stevens. It's listed on Whitney_Stevens that she is listed under the categories Panamanian_Jews and Panamanian_pornographic_film_actors. Since Britney_Stevens is she her sister and a pornstar; should she be listed under those 2 categories as well?

2. Qumunity is an article I want to create. It fits under the category LGBT_culture_in_Vancouver becuase Qmunity is Vancouver's centre for gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people. I think there should be article for it. Here's the link: http://www.qmunity.ca/

3. Naturally Autistic is another article I want to create because it fits under Autism_related_organizations and It's been around since 1995 and it is run a couple in Gibsons,_British_Columbia and I have a link for it: http://www.naturallyautistic.com/founders/297/

Please let me know about doing these articles. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Orange Mike. I just discovered at the help desk that a post of mine from yesterday was not only removed by you but rolled back. May I assume this was a misclick you didn't notice?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was hoping you could block IP 164.100.153.254, as you can tell from their history its filled with many vandalism events over the last year. Thanks Passionless (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my last comment on the discussion you began about the Ron Holloway article. Looking at the original stub, which Holloway claimed was an innacurate one begun by fans, I found User:T. Anthony. I was trying to find other editors who'd be willing to help with it, and he was the only one. Holloway was mad that I agreed your assessment was correct, and so took it personally, writing an email re: spelling mistakes I made. I was pissed & told him so. I continued editing in good faith though, but suddenly they were all suspect. Glad the first editor reviewed my edits, and found no POV. I apologized for being offended, let it go, and left a section to explain refs on the talk page. Today, there's a newer section placed above it, entitled, "In My Defense"! Something should be done there, but not by me. I want my life back. Thanks.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, if an editor has actually contacted the subject of an article (who also is editing Wikipedia, then we may have issues of off-Wiki harassment. The moment any editor takes that step outside of Wikipedia's boundaries, they stir up a gigantic hornet's nest. I don't think we have the block in the right place here ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins notified me of this because I declined Lonsax's unblock request. The WP:NLT block appears valid, as Lonsax writes that he contacted the police about Leahtwosaints's alleged emails to him. Apart from that, I am not sure that we can do anything about any offwiki issues these two users might have. But in view of the apparent personal and possible legal conflict between Leahtwosaints and the article's subject I strongly suggest that Leahtwosaints stop editing the article per WP:COI, enforced by block if necessary. Lonsax can continue to signal any BLP concerns about the article through the WP:OTRS system via the "Contact Wikipedia" link.  Sandstein  14:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my corresponding request at User talk:Leahtwosaints#Your conflict with Ronsax.  Sandstein  14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's unreasonable at all - The key issue as it relates to the block is the conflict between Ronsax and Leahtwosaints. If they both back away, I think the situation can be defused. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any desire to edit Holloway's article as things stand, if this is given a little time and there's an absolute end to the raving to every editor who might listen from User:Ronsax. I haven't commented on all the various issues (many untrue) that Holloway is now making about me. I will say this: my questions to User:Wasted Time R were to find the most accurate way to represent Holloway's presence in what he calls Dizzy Gillespie's final quintet. That isn't disputed, but the original text appeared to sound like all the performers were on equal level, whereas I had not seen any reference billing "The Gillespie Quintet", for example. I was trying to ascertain the difference between whether he was a band member or a sideman. I was trying to be as factual as possible, in case the subject was exaggerating his importance in the ensemble, which I asked Holloway about. Frankly, I think it's unwise for the subject of the article to be the primary editor- or to exert pressure and influence upon wording, references, etc. With WP:COI and WP:OWN issues, how can the next Wikipedian who attempts to edit the article be sure their edits will not be considered as personal attacks? I don't think the article could advance given the POV of the subject. It's a veritable hornet's nest. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your 'cancellation' or 'reversal' of an 'update' by myself a day ago in the form of the removal of what is now completely irrlevant material originally provided by myself some time ago on this Talk Page. You tell me this should have been done by 'striking out' ('strikeout'). To 'strike out' is what I thought I had done by removing it in the only way of which I am aware, other than complete removal. I make this clear in my editing explanation and ask you to provide an explanation, please, of what you mean by 'strikeout'. Thank you in advance. Peter Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.7.94 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:Strikethrough ... and I have done it properly on your behalf. It's the same as any Word Processor: <s>text to be struck</s> will become text to be struck (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run it as you wish. I have added my own explanation which I hope you will leave in place. Peter Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.42.162 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orange Mike,

You deleted my post yesterday. Is there anyway to place that content in my sandbox for editing? I didn't really figure that with a deletion I wouldn't be able to get back to the original user space build of it.

Also, could you please explain to me why any of the other 400 advertising agencies listed here are more notable than the one I submitted? In doing a quick review of their inclusions there doesn't appear to be anything different from the post I made.

Thanks in advance. Loyd

--Lwsellersjr (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to deletion: done; see User:Lwsellersjr/Lewis. As to the rest: see WP:CORP and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As an aside: advertising agencies, based on my experience here, have an industry-specific problem, in that they labor under the delusion that they are notable to the broader world, if they are known within the industry to their peers and competitors (at least in their region or market niche). The idea that the rest of the planet neither knows nor cares about who has the media buying account for Fred's Hamburgers in the Upper Midwestern U.S. region is apparently entirely alien to them. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the two wikilinks you provided. I would like to reference WP:CORP with 'When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.' Demonstrable effects on culture, society and economies is the business that advertising agencies are in. That's pretty much all they do, for the good or bad of it. Building notability for their clients is paramount to their own as their notability is held within the industry in the form of accolades and awards. Which have been cited.

While the general public may not have an interest in advertising agencies, successful agencies certainly are notable within their industry, to the clients that are considering hiring them, to the employees that work there, and to prospective employees. The standard being applied to Lewis Advertising seems to be a bit subjective, as this agency has a similar record of awards and success to others that are being listed.

--Lwsellersjr (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"successful agencies certainly are notable within their industry, to the clients that are considering hiring them, to the employees that work there, and to prospective employees" - that's utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia; see WP:USEFUL and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. As to the other, I refer you again to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; out of the 3.5 million articles in Wikipedia, a lot of them are about non-notable topics, but nobody's gotten around to purging them yet - that does not justify the addition of yet another non-notable topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of 400 advertising agencies on Wikipedia has more to do with the persistence of ad agencies doing what they do well: advertise. Unfortunately, few would survive an articles for deletion debate, and many were written by editors with a conflict of interest, which you clearly share. Having reviewed the draft, I see no evidence that the firm meets either the general notability standard or wp:corp. In general, notability demands at least two or three articles written in independent media of at least regional (as in several states) or national standing, focusing on the subject. This is an objective way of judging inclusion, as opposed to the argument you've made above, which is entirely subjective. This is not a slight to the company, it is just a simple way to determine whether a worldwide encyclopedia should have an article on the subject. Acroterion _(talk) 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I can see this is an exercise in futility, as is resistance... I will leave you folks to it. I rest assured that I will always have a reference online to look up things much more notable than a company that has been toiling in the landscape of American business for over 40 years. You know, like a featured item today, a list of Star Trek the Next Generation episodes. I am sure if this were a time capsule that would offer more detailed narrative of our endeavors as humans. I see there is a movement to reduce the relevance of the site as a reference tool for the masses, well except in the case of second-rate sci-fi, publicly held Behemoths and the nearest Medieval Times.
--Lwsellersjr (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]