Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:54, 22 May 2013

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 Misplaced Pages? 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.

TUSC token fa255ad995d61b015320a1a04245a250

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

AfD notice Jill Kenton

Nomination of Jill Kenton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jill Kenton is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jill Kenton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Bluford Series Deletion

I appreciate hearing criteria for impartiality, but there is a gray area here. These words HAVE been said by "objective" parties such as the ALA (American Library Association) and the Journal for Adolescent and Adult Literacy (JAAL), and the books have sold over 9 million copies, so there is something to the idea that they are popular! Links to these authorities were in the deleted page. I can edit to address your concerns, but what was on that page is what others--not me--have been saying.

Also, the content of those pages took a while to compile and does not exist anywhere else except on Misplaced Pages. While I certainly can edit to add reference and more objective or third party language, I would like to get back the content as a baseline from which to start editing. Is that possible?

Mctator

Shiny thing

Merry Christmas!!

For all you do!! Have a wonderful HOLIDAY!!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Possible COI issue

User:Robiyacher started their account yesterday and seems to be using it solely to promote Georgia Holt, the 86-year-old mother of Cher. The only articles she's editing are for Holt, Cher, Holt's daughter/Cher's half-sister Georganne LaPiere, and the various current Holt projects that Cher has been helping her with. So far, Robiyacher has created three completely unsourced articles relating to Holt (an album released a couple days ago, and two singles from it). I did my best to clean-up one of them: Honky Tonk Woman (Georgia Holt Album). (I'll leave it to you to decide which of the articles s/he created are notable). Anyway, I hope you can educate this edtior about creating all these totally unsourced articles, notabillity, and potential COI issues. Also, the editor is not able to write in proper English; for example, see Homecoming Queen(Georgia Holt Song) which shows the type of article that destroys Misplaced Pages's credibility. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. Here's another article for a Holt song the editor created: I'm Just Your Yesterday. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike, you deleted Honky Tonk Woman (Georgia Holt Album) a few days ago, but the editor just ignored you and re-created it (with a slightly different, unitalicized title). Again, the editor fails to establish notability, uses poor English, uppercases the first letter of many words, and uses promotional language ("which clearly demonstrates exactly where Cher's unique voice came from"). And it's completely unsourced again. Please delete it again. Robiyacher needs warned for all these editing violations and complete disregard for the initial deletion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: Robiyacher is at it again. S/he just re-created another article you speedy deleted a couple days ago; again with a slightly different name: Homecoming Queen (Georgia Holt Song). You had deleted it as Homecoming Queen(Georgia Holt Song). (The one you deleted had no space after "Queen"; the new one does.) As before, no notability and zero sources. This editor is here solely to promote Holt's non-notable music and other Cher-related articles. And look at this post by Robiyacher on the Homecoming Queen talk page; it gives more proof that s/he has no understanding of notability and will simply keep creating articles about Holt like this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

69th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Would like to reverse an indefinite protection you placed on this article last October. I do not believe indefinite protection is appropriate, and am quite happy to explain at whatever length necessary the technicalities of the subject involved (basically, the determined user involved does not understand that the U.S. Army has only one regiment with the same designation at the same time). Would you mind acknowledging on my talkpage? Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor re-creating articles you speedy-deleted

Mike, please see the thread above for updates about User:Robiyacher, who has just re-created articles about Georgia Holt (Cher's mother) that you speedy-deleted a couple days ago. This editor must be president of the Holt fan club (and anything else Cher-related). ;) I wasn't sure you'd go back to look at an old thread, so that's why I'm leaving this message. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this, Mike. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Help with a clear case of autobiography, Richard R. Pieper

Orangemike, the article Richard R. Pieper appears to be an autobiography. One of the main contributors is a user named Richard R. Pieper. The article has virtually no sources at all, except the subject’s own business website and a sensational right wing website. This article contains completely ridiculous information… he is a member of the Milwaukee Yacht Club, and a Member of the local Church Council etc... I don’t believe this kind of minutiae belong on WP. Since the article is completely unsupported, I believe it should be edited to a stub, and let others build it back, this time with sources. What do you think? This man is known around Milwaukee, and a quick check of the local newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, shows some articles collaborating some of the information. Billynow (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

SDUSA

I'm not sure why you reverted by edit. The stated goal of the SDUSA, a socialist party, was to transform the Democratic Party into a social democratic party. In the current system, the Democrats are regarded as center-left; moving it to social democracy is a move further to the left, to the left-wing - which is what socialism is regarded as in the United States. Could you perhaps meet me in the middle and make it 'center-left to left-wing'? Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The actual political stance of the SD-USA in almost all matter of policy was social conservative, economic middle-of-the-road; rhetoric≠action. They were a bunch of aging and increasingly irrelevant (but powerful) Cold Warriors and survivors of the purging of "subversive tendencies" from the American labor movement in the McCarthy era, who fiercely supported Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey over George McGovern in the 1972 Democratic presidential race, and ended up tacitly supporting the re-election of Richard Nixon. That's not left-wing even by American standards. The members of the old Socialist Party of America who were actually left-of-center bolted to form the Democratic Socialists of America and (to their left, but still pretty moderate by European standards) the Socialist Party U.S.A.. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand many anti-communist socialists adopted anti-communist views as a priority, and some were appointed in Republican administrations; those are the people that originated neoconservatism, after all. However, we don't judge parties by actual actions - the CCP is considered communist even though it has adopted capitalist aspects, for example. The only source that describes positions here calls it a socialist party, and socialism is left-wing in the United States. Maybe political position can be omitted entirely since there is no confirmation either way? Toa Nidhiki05 02:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sherban Young deletions

Orangemike, I received your talk notices about "crap" and warnings of promoting a specific angle in Misplaced Pages articles. I do work for Sherban Young, am a novice at using Misplaced Pages and was not aware I was violating any rules. I did read the articles you sent -- I see that adding a link to Sherban on the Wodehouse page could be interpreted as a violation. It is unclear to me why it was incorrect to delete the McKnight entry. McKnight is featured in a novel by Sherban and with McKnight's blessing/permission. Also unclear is why you would have deleted Sherban's authorship of the three CD-ROM games mentioned on his own page. His authorship is not in dispute and the mention of the games reveals how he got his start in composing puzzles and intricate plotlines in general. I certainly don't want to be in violation but sincerely want to understand what was offensive about these two items. Thanks! Lynseyhannah (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We have pretty close to a zero-tolerance policy here about publicity efforts; and after your stunt with the vanity insert of your boss into the article on the great P. G. Wodehouse, it was clear that the way to go was to revert all your edits and put you on notice. If there are things you want to see changed in an article, given your blatant conflict of interest, make the suggestion on the talk page(s) of the article(s) involved, fully disclosing as you do your conflict of interest, and other editors without your conflict will examine your suggestions and possibly even incorporate them into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You will note that another editor has in fact returned some items to the article, since they seemed not too promotional in nature. That's how it should work. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Blockage of Wolf Trap Foundation account and reversion of it's edits at Wolf Trapl

Good Morning Orangemike

A couple of quick questions -

1) May I assume you revered the recent edits to Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts article due to the obvious conflict of interest?

2) May I assume that you blocked the User:Wolf Trap Foundation account as it does not belong to an individual?

If the answers to the above are both yes, do you see a problem with my advising the individual who made the edits that

1) she needs to open a personal account to make edits

2) since she has a COI, she must provide neutral third party citations for any edits she makes.

Thanks

ed

Ecragg (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; but make sure she realizes that she is not to make the edits herself, but to suggest them on the talk page of the article, complete with proper citations and with full disclosure of her own COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian Armed Forces

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indian Armed Forces. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Self Revert

Clue-Bot beat me to reverting the vandalism of the IP . My attempt at revert happened probably a split second after Cluebot executed its revert. I was using Huggle and I simply hit the wrong button when Huggle notified me of this and thus I accidently reverted Clue-bot. Realizing my mistake, I immediately reverted my own action. Thank you and have a lovely day. --RacerX Talk to me 20:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd wondered: it certainly didn't seem like the sort of edit I'd expect from you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

Hello, Mike. I have taken the fairly unusual step of accepting an unblock request at User talk:Boriswatch without first consulting you as the blocking admin. I really cannot see the user's edits a in any way promotional. Although the username relates to the name of a blog, I feel that it comes under the provision "plain domain names (without .com, .co.kr, etc.) are sometimes acceptable, such as when the purpose is simply to identify the user as a person" at WP:SPAMNAME, and the account has not promoted the blog, nor as far as I can find even mentioned it. Please let me know if you think I am wrong, but that is how I see this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I can see your point of view. As a matter of policy, I feel that user handles which match the name of one's blog do fall under WP:PRODNAME; but a softerblock would have been the way to go. ISTR that what tipped it for me is that he was engaged in disputes about a guy named Boris, so I saw the repeated appearance of this username as being an advertisement appealing for those who were interested in Boris-watching; thus, the spamuserblock. Still, I think your actions are quite reasonable and well-explained, and I await the account's renaming. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Check

OM, could you check what I did at The Stony Brook School and decide if the article needs protecting. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent work cleaning up vandalism, trolling, and disruptiion. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Susan J. Elliott

Thank you for dealing with/blocking someone claiming to be Susan J. Elliott. I would have thought that a lawyer would have read what you wrote more carefully, because I saw that no one said that her article was an autobiography, but she was advised to read the policy on autobiographical articles. I am not entirely sure that she really is Susan J. Elliott. A real lawyer would have probably avoided SHOUTING IN ALL CAPITALS. In any case, she (or he or it) needed blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Andy does have a point, and one that should be seriously discussed by the body, in an effort to achieve consensus. (Hey, I'm a hippie, a second-wave feminist AND a Quaker; I loves me some consensus!) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I put up the first Susan J. Elliott page. She is not my friend, relative, or person close to me. Instead, she is an author and professional who is doing really great practical work.

So, your accusations are incorrect.

128.220.159.65 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Orangemike", I don't know how to assure you that I am this- I don't want my personal information all over the Internet. But for one thing, you should call Susan herself- you can find her blog quite easily, and it will be easy to figure out that she is a real person, and that she didn't create her Misplaced Pages entry. I started the basic entry, and I haven't looked at it for ages...maybe 4 years or so. I noticed that about a year after I put it up, more people had added things. That's what an entry is supposed to be like, right? I really admire Susan's work, and I recommend her blog to a lot of people I meet, all the time. So, OK, let me give you a throwaway email that I just made, so you can contact me there and then give me your phone number and I will call you, and just basically tell you the exact same thing I'm typing here. I'm sure that there are people who do whatever on the Internet and on Misplaced Pages, but Susan isn't one. However, because her work is either with those in bad relationship breakups or those dealing with grief, as you can imagine, there are some odd characters out there who try to cause trouble on the blog, and I'm sure elsewhere. Here's my throwaway email: veeancee@yahoo.com . Send me how to contact you and tell me what you want to know, and I can call and talk with you about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.65 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A person claiming to be Elliott was editing the article; I gave her the standard warning template about creating OR EDITING an article about yourself. Instead of addressing the substantive concerns I raised, she started dropping threats about how this was libel and she was a lawyer, and CYBERSHOUTING IN ALL CAPITALS LIKE THIS as she did so. Until the threat of lawsuit is addressed, nothing more substantial can be done; this has nothing to do with the merit of my concerns (or hers), but rather with the fact that we will not allow the threat of legal action to create a chilling effect on what we do here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Targeted killing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Targeted killing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

ZeeTVusa

Hi Mike. I thought you'd like to know that I've offered this user a possible route to being unblocked, in the same sort of vein as WP:SECONDCHANCE (see his talkpage for details). Assuming that he takes it (and does so successfully), would you be amenable to an unblock-and-rename? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of redemption; but I'm rather concerned about the persistently promotional tone, especially such peacock wording as "football legend ThisGuyYouNeverHeardOf" and "super model ThisObscureWannabe". I really suspect this person works in PR somewhere and has suffered permanent hardening of the sensibilities towards what is acceptable fact versus advertising fluff. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm on the fence here. Like you, I'd rather see him rejoin the fold, but whilst it's not the blatant vanispamcruftisement of his previous efforts, there's still, as you say, an air of puffery about the text. I'm also concerned about the sourcing; three of those sources aren't accessible to me but appear to be videos of the show itself, whilst the other two are just TV listings - nothing indicates to me that there's a shred of notability to be had. I think, on balance, that I'll leave the unblock appeal in place rather than actioning it; since I'd probably tag that article for deletion if I stumbled on it in mainspace, it would be rather hypocritical of me to unblock based on its suitability. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Double-check re: church memberships on their sites

Mike, you commented on Talk:List_of_the_largest_Protestant_churches_in_the_United_States#PDF_-_options_to_make_it_a_reliable_source that "if it were published on their website, I think this still falls under self-published sources, and would not meet our standards of reliable sourcing." Anyways, the other 2 editors in the discussion both agree that this would suffice and is used extensively on the page already using WP:ABOUTSELF. I just want to double check that you think this is fine.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

in the news!!

"Rachel Johnson in the grip of Misplaced Pages's ‘Orange Mike’" :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking Rubeus

Hi Orange Mike,

I'm glad to see that you took some appropriately timed, well-considered action against someone who was showing himself to be diametrically opposed to what we stand for around here! Indeed a defender of the wiki! --Slashme (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Go Phightins! 02:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaissance Books Conflict of Interest

Orange Mike, I'm sure you're aware that, in violation of COI guidelines, you created and edited the article on Renaissance Books, your current place of employment. Doesn't that leave you with unclean hands when you template and block others for the actions that you yourself are guilty of as well? RenPR (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)— RenPR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. I created that article long ago, when I was green here myself, but even then using solid references, and fully disclosing my COI on my user page. Nonetheless, I would certainly never do something like nowadays; and I have long since stopped editing that article.
2. This matter was discussed in full by the community before I was entrusted with the Mop and Bucket of adminship; and the consensus was that my behavior had been more than acceptable.
3. My almost decade-long record here displays that from my first edit, I was clearly not here for spamming purposes; which is not the case for the spammers and COI editors I warn and/or block. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, a user with the name RenPR, whose only participation in the project is this outrageous accusation. This is obviously someone who was educated about WP:COI or reprimanded for violating it while editing as a different user. Give me a break. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to discuss my history as an editor here, regardless of the motiviations of the person raising the issue. While I do have my suspicions as to the possible identity of the drive-by accuser, so what, big deal: admins must take responsibility for what we do, or we don't deserve to be entrusted with the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course admins must take responsibility for what they do, but that doesn't mean you have any obligation to reply to someone whose first (and still only) edit is to come here to falsely accuse you - in a snarky manner, no less - of being "guilty" of violating COI guidelines. That in itself is proof that they had some sort of contact with you under a different user name. Further, you weren't even an admin when you edited that article. So I commend you for replying in such a courteous and detailed manner to the PR editor. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is a commendable response; significantly more-so for not parsing the motivations of the one asking the question. There is no down-side for residing above reproach, nor for holding that higher ground when so eloquently enticed to stoop. Hats off to the man in orange. My76Strat (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Milwaukee County Board

Hi-The Wisconsin Legislature passed a law and sent ti to Governor Walker changing the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors. The Milwaukee County Executive will have more powers, the term for the county reduced from 2 to 4 years, and mandating a referendum of reducing the county supervisors salaries. Therefore, changes will have to be made in the political subdivisions of Wisconsin and the Milwaukee County Board articles reflecting these changes. Governor Walker siad he will sign the bill. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Al-Ahbash

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Al-Ahbash. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page clearing

Hi Mike. There are two current discussions regarding the issue of a user removing comments from their talk page, in which I invoked your name. Therefore, I wanted to make you aware of it. The discussions are here and here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I noticed this thread above and had to add my two cents. It was just too tempting. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Poynter Institute

Hi there,

I noticed you reverted my removal of the uncited section on The Kelly McBride incident. Was this intentional? It didn't seem to make sense given the edit summary. LFaraone

Given that McBride's role has been discussed at the Knight Center on Journalism in the America's https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-13266-netizens-call-cnn-apologize-sympathetic-coverage-teenagers-found-guilty-rape in the Washington Post, etc., seems to me that this is useful as a counterbalance to the current puff piece about the Institute. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I've added that as a cite and slightly reworded the text. LFaraone 20:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection of userpage.

Hello Mike, there has been some confusion. I frequently edit anonymously (including my userpage) and I would appreciate if you didn't protect my page. Thank you. Philipmj24 (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I had no way of knowing, and anonymous edits to a userpage are usually bad news! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Usually they are, but not in this case. At least I know now someone out there cares. Thanks again. Philipmj24 (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Tucao O. Mastura article

Greetings Orangemike,

I have observed that you are checking the article Tucao O. Mastura. Please do help improve the article with your comments and suggestions. Thank you and have a great day! Dstpm.18 (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegetarians

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegetarians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Showing Some Love

Hey! I just saw you are Irish. My respects, I am a huge fan of Irish culture. Love and peace... Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Orangemike

I noticed you online and wanted to ask a favor. Please undelete my user page ensuring it is the version with my editing history. I'm not concerned about the two erroneous creations unless you want to histmerg them all. If possible please answer the request sooner rather than later; I am needing some of its history and other things are on hold until I get this done. Thank you for considering my request. My76Strat (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done—My76Strat (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ENGLISH

my english is better than u, that user's interpretations are sub par, user grumpy is wasting administrators time and my time, with trivial personal grudge on me (about categories), I am not even editing those articles now, he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true??? time waste Murrallli (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

quod erat demonstrandum --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice about getting other eyes on an article or beginning a RfC

I have an edit at Common Cause. It describes the organization as "liberal". There are well over 500 unique news (not opinion) sources that describe it as such. (NYT, WaPo, LAT, WSJ, ABC, CNN, etc.) There are a large number of academic sources that use that descriptor. Another editor disagrees with the usage. No one else ever visits the talk page or article. I think a RfC effort might(?) help. Is there an easier way to get input or how does one go about doing an RfC? Thanks in advance for your guidance and advice. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Josh Urbiztondo

Hi Orangemike, over three years ago you warned this user of COI ; it's safe to say the suggestion was not taken to heart. Since then Josh Urbiztondo has become an apotheosis. I've started a thread at the BLP noticeboard. It's particularly difficult to begin weeding because one can start with the blatantly peacocky and then conclude that almost nothing is sourced; virtually the whole article is a scrapbook as recounted by the father. Any assistance you can render will be appreciated. Thanks, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks . Much as I'd like to take a rapier to such pieces, I rarely have the heart to clear cut. Cheers, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Racism

The edit to the article you complained about, was actually to remove opinions and bias, which were painfully clear.....where were you then? I advise you look up the history in said article, before making your own uneducated opinions. There was *clear* one sided racially motivated bias and opinion in that article against Caucasians....and ironically you're actually doing nothing but proving the definition of the article in question by using such little thought before coming to a conclusive perception. Fair is fair, and you should reflect on that. I implore you to not use the internet to fill the void of a lackluster life. It's cheap and disdainful. My hope is that you'll learn from your mistakes and be a bit more thorough in the future, if you do feel the need to fill that void. Be better than you are.