User talk:Orangemike/Archive 2

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thanks. Coming from a veteran like yourself, that's a high compliment. :-) Nightscream 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - LPR had cut its ties with the ruling PiS party a few weeks before dissolution of the Polish parliament and immediately both parties started to attack each other. Roman Giertych has been loudly criticizing their former partners ever since Tymek 17:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dzieki, Tymek! (How would I say that in Kashubian/Polabian? There are a lot of Kashubs here in Milwaukee.) Can you put some of that into the article? --Orange Mike 17:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have no idea how they say Dzieki in Kashubian, and as for Polabian - well, I guess nobody will tell you, as this language does not exist any more. Kashubs in Milwaukee? I have never heard of it, there are a lot of Poles in this great city. BTW this summer I visited Wisconsin Dells, beautiful. Greets Tymek 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Several webpages told me "Polabian" was a synonymn for "Kashubian"; I should have checked Wikipedia. Lots of Milwaukee Poles are specifically Kashubian; they settled on

Riverwest, where they built St. Hedwig's. --Orange Mike

18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (UW-Milwaukee history major)

Polabians used to live along the lower Laba (Elbe) and Trave rivers, their language became extinct in the 18th century. Kashubians live in the area of Gdansk, some 500 km west of Polabian territory. Tymek 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, why did you try to speedy delete the William Forward article? His notability was asserted, I listed a role and some appearances, sourced the article, and also tagged it as a stub. The speedy tag was removed (not by me of course), and I'm curious to know why you tried to speedy it as non-notable. Thanks. Acalamari 02:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've never created an article before then, and if I've made a mistake, feel free to take the article to AfD. I believed that his Babylon 5 role, combined with his other roles, made him notable enough for an article, even just a stub. At any rate though, if you want the article deleted, I won't mind if you take it to AfD for discussion there. Acalamari 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I see from your user box that you are a Quaker. I noticed the conspicuous abscence of " thee", "thine", "thou" and other forms used by the Society of Friends. Do you no longer use these forms and speak as "the Lord spoke"? I am ever so curious, as the Quakers that I once knew did.Die4Dixie 00:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Plain Speech, like Plain Dress, is more often practiced by the most conservative among the various groups of Friends. I am a "convinced" rather than "birthright" Quaker, and am still finding my way spiritually. "As the Lord spoke" is of course nonsense; mere human language cannot express His speech in any way.

I've spent enough time in the SCA, reading Shakespeare and studying history that I'm afraid if I were to try to switch to Plain Speech, I'd come out all Elizabethan. More to the point, I fear that in me, it might appear to be an affectation rather than an act of faith. I go to meeting; I practice peace; and I don't swear oaths, or doff my hat in any presence lesser than the Presence of God (i.e., in a house of worship, be it meeting house or synagogue). Unfortunately, plainness of dress is a custom I'm having a great deal of trouble adopting, as the picture of me on my User page might tip you off. The vanity of this world has a grip on me.

If you're interested in finding out more about Friends, I wholeheartedly recommend you to http://www.quaker.org for information about the various ways in which we follow Him. It's not a fancy site: like a good Quaker, more substance than style.

In typing this response, I notice that there is no article in Wikipedia on either of these practices! Hmmm... Perhaps the

Inner Light led you to ask this question, that I might be moved to write on them? --Orange Mike

02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, I think most of what I would need to say is covered here in Wikipedia under

Testimony of Simplicity. --Orange Mike

02:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I had only known conservative Quakers. Until I read the articles, I had no idea.Thank you for sharing a little about your faithDie4Dixie 03:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the ways you can tell I'm an ex-Baptist: always looking for a chance to witness! (And actually, by the standards of my local meeting, I am conservative!) --Orange Mike 03:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to heed the spirit of your recommendation and recreate Category:TSR, Inc. I also put the magazines in there.--Mike Selinker 04:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as you re-wrote the description of the "games" category (as I see you did). Your old employer, eh? Me too; my first professional sales were to Dragon. --Orange Mike 12:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you stated in the

17:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! While this may not persuade you to change your vote (and I wrote this in my vote), it's editors like that that are why I'm against using the title "Nobel Prize in Economics". They truly believe it is a Nobel Prize because of its name and via sources on the web, regardless of what's in the Wikipedia article. So it doesn't seem to help what's in the lead of the article... No need to comment -- just wanted to thank you for your help.

17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... the debate isn't over. I hope you have

18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mike, just wanted to let you know I removed your report from

13:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. I don't mind a "told you so"! Please do let me know if I can help further. In fact, I'll have a closer look at this guys editing pattern and maybe issue an ultimatum... The Rambling Man 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, however the user has actually made an effort at the Village Pump to find out where he/she is going wrong. I've left a warning note on both the accounts. Should it flare up it any way again then let me know and I'll squash it flat. The Rambling Man 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That she is highly idiological and a commentator does not stop her from being an accredited, trained and accomplished journalist. Do you know her resume?--Blue Tie 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are going from different visions of journalist. (My father was a reporter with libertarian leanings; it never colored his reporting, and nobody paid him to express his opinions.) I feel that a commentator, somebody who is so clearly dedicated to an ideological agenda, any ideological agenda, and is paid for expressing that agenda rather than for reportage, ceases to be a reliable source, especially when the story is of the "the other day somebody called me and said" variety, as this appears to be. --Orange Mike 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be original research though? Anyway, I am referring to the fact that she has a long history as a paper journalist -- for 12 years. Perhaps not a reporter exactly like your dad though, she was a columnist. But that is still journalism. I will admit that I did not read the sources, and assumed that Michelle Malkin was the source for the one that remained. However, that cite was actually CNS which is not Michelle Malkin. Perhaps your argument is with CNS. I also have read this from other sources, which I could provide except I am so unmotivated right now. (Family issues) By the way, I really like your user page a great deal and even if I disagreed with you I would have to respect you! --Blue Tie —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The cite is to Malkin's column on CNS; her source is somebody who called her. If this is available from other, less partisan sources who didn't get it from Malkin, that would be better fitting to our NPOV policy; and it would have a place in the article. (And I don't think a columnist/commentator is a journalist in the sense that a reporter is; it's not an online vs. print or even audiovisual vs. print issue, but rather one of issues of objectivity vs. strong opinionated stands [regardless of whether I agree with them or not].) --Orange Mike 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

...and thanks for your message on my talk page. I assume you refer to my removal of a {prod} on

21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think you may have misunderstood my comment, or maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear. I wrote that I jumped to the conclusion you described at

) 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for having voiced your opin ion in this rather unpleasant discussion.Die4Dixie 12:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You have tagged an article twice now[1] without providing a single example on the talk page of a peacock term or unsourced statement. Please provide specific examples on the talk page of what you say are peacock terms or advertorial content so that suggested improvements can be discussed. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is as yet no valid example put forward. If you're going to tag the article, please provide, for example, a specific unsourced

WP:PEACOCK term, so that they can be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"highly sought-after" "noted authority" -- looks like a

Pavo cristatus, flourishes like a Pavo cristatus, I say it's a Pavo cristatus ! --Orange Mike

16:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

dmoz

please use link to dmoz {{dmoz|Arts/Design/Fashion/Corsetry/|Corsets} Haabet 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson FAR

I have started a featured article review for Ernest Emerson at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ernest Emerson. Your contribution would be appreciated.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

) 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion...

Mike, since we've crossed paths over this as well, can I get your opinion here: User_talk:Crazy-dancing#Unsourced_material please? Into The Fray ^T/C 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

I wasn't aware that an institutional IP could be tagged as a sockpuppet?!?

My Response:

Is it prohibited in the rules? I would think that the IP should be tagged so that other users will know that a sockpuppeteer uses the IP.

--
gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫
 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assistance...

Thank you very much for it, I believe it helped to bring the point home and the citing/sourcing continues. P.S. I've also now read Friday by Heinlein and am halfway through The Left Hand of Darkness. You didn't recommend the first -- I thought you had -- but it turned out to be a great book and a far cry from what I've been reading. Left Hand is amazing. Very different. I enjoy novels written from various points of view. Out of curiosity, have you ever read An Instance of the Fingerpost by Iain Pears? Not science fiction, but a great book. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to be a little more careful about tossing that accusation around as you did here [2]. I see nothing wrong with removing the automated signature from an editorial comment I made in the middle of a large body of text that I wrote. And even if you think that it was inappopriate to remove and wanted to restore it, I think that a more descriptive and less accusatory edit summary would have been better. -Chunky Rice 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point of view; but we have so much trouble with people failing to sign their comments, that I feel the deliberate removal of a signature when one is added, even by bot, does constitute (low-grade) vandalism. I'm sorry if the use of the term offended, and hope you see my point of view as well. --Orange Mike 17:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism inherently indicates a bad faith action with intent to damage the project. By maintaining your position that my removal of an automated signature (to a piece of larger text that was already signed), you continue to accuse me of bad faith editing and I just don't appreciate it. I'm afraid I don't see your point of view at all and think you should be more careful who you call a vandal. -Chunky Rice 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I clearly have offended, and I do apologize. If there were some way to do so, I'd strike out delete the summary to indicate my regret. --Orange Mike 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, do you like orange juice? Surely, you must. What brand? :-)

At any rate, I was wondering how you feel the "Political Blog" wiki is shaping up. It seems that it has gone through lots of changes in the past 24 hours. It's almost overhwelming. You have been editing for a while, so that's why I was curious about your take. Rockdiedout 11:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do like orange juice (and oranges, and

political blog article lately, so am unable to comment. It's a topic incredibly subject to linkspamming and POV edits, as I don't have to tell you; but I'm not a good one to judge whether a particular Aussie blogger, for example, is well-known or merely a publicity seeker. --Orange Mike

12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Cool. I don't think I've tried the Mountain Dew Livewire orange flavor yet. I'll have to check it out next time I'm at the store. Yeah, I actually have a link there for a blog that I really like and I think it's just as notable as other blogs listed, but it seems people might continue removing it. It's difficult to prove that something is legitimate when people just remove it without even asking you any questions. Sometimes, I think people just remove editing out of spite, just because they've had issues with you in the past. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia (editing, since I've been reading articles for over a year now), but I'm guessing there's a way for people to view everything you've edited? I know some of my edits in the past have been unworthy, I suppose, but then even editing I think is legitimate usually gets removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdiedout (talk • contribs) 20:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask of Anglo-Scottish border wikipage. You said on talkpage of User:Friday that Anglo is correct and age old term, well i reply that age of term of Scotland is not Scottish or Scots, but infact Scotch - many people of Scotland not like this and now it is changed, great example is that wikipage is not called "Anglo-Scotch border", so i ask why so harsh in words, am guessing you do not like English people maybe? YESYESandmanygoals 09:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Scotch" is a whiskey. "Scottish" is an adjective. The English language is quirky in many ways. (And I like many English common people fine; it's English governments and rulers [mostly] I have troubles with.) --Orange Mike 21:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Biggest misconception of world in history of universe is that English people benefit univerally more than other British and Irish because of British Empire, NOT true, infact from history until today in 2007 there are area of England that is poorer than ireland, wales and Scotland - and it is disgrace that Americans do not recognise this while always hailing the great struggle of Scotland, Wales and Ireland, disgusting misjustice. YESYESandmanygoals 13:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you not want to reply, next time you think of "English" think of lucky Scots and Irish who have more money and better lifestyle from year 1 to 2007. YESYESandmanygoals 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the pedantry, but "Scotch" is NOT a whiskey, but a whisky. The Irish make whiskey.Joystick74 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I'm teetotal, and can never remember which is which. --Orange Mike 17:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If we are being really pedantic Scotch is whisky, not a whisky! And the Americans and the Japanese make whiskey too... Tony 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

...I have heard the term "Black flight" used to describe fleeing from racism in the south. The source supports this. It's also the most historically significant instance of Blacks feeling something en mass. futurebird 15:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the entire article would have to be discarded, or rewritten from the ground up. As specific terminology, as opposed to just normal use of English to describe the act of flight by Black people, the present article is much more specialized, about something else entirely. What you're talking about is part of the entire history of the African diaspora in North America. --Orange Mike 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm bringing up these concerns because I wonder if "black flight" is really significant in terms of suburbanization when I can find so few sources. It seems more significant in terms of being a response to southern racism. Please see my comments on the talk page of the article. futurebird 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike I'm pretty new to all this and not entirely sure what the best way of going about things is. I just wanted to reply to the issue you raised on my talk page relating to COI. Thanks for letting me know, I will read through all the material and see how best to update the End Water Poverty entry. I stripped out most of the content to make sure it wouldn't appear as bias in the meantime. I also removed the COI tag from the WaterAid entry as the only edit I ever made to this page was to updaet the logo so I wouldn't say that is a substantial contribution nor an edit that is relevant to COI. I hope you are ok with all that, please let me know if not. Isabellam 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken to your talk page. --Orange Mike 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. Still finding my way around regarding the rules of Wikipedia and suchlike, and didn't want to tread on any toes; comes of being in a very hierarchial organization. Continues to amaze me how many people take 'co-operative effort/environment' for 'I can do what I want and pee on the floor if I feel like it'. Jackytar 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation is hard work. It's the difference between anarchism and anarchy/chaos. --Orange Mike 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No reason? In a section discussing various abbreviations used, preferring any one by using it in the text is unfair. Besides, it's an encyclopedia; in-genre acronyms don't look professional. Finally, why abbreviate? Whose time are we saving? As to my edit summary, I quote Wikipedia:Cleanup:"may include wikification, spelling, grammar, tone, and sourcing." Love the orange, though. Deltabeignet 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I come from a journalistic background, and have always understood that use of synonymns rather than a mere constant reiteration of the same term made it easier to read as prose. "SF" is the commonly accepted abbreviation in the field among professionals, fans and academics alike, and not controversial (unlike "sf" or the hated "sci-fi"). Still, as you say, it's not a major matter, rather a preference in style and a belief as to readability of text. --Orange Mike 20:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I just made a new article about Ken MacLeod at Wikiquote (see wikiquote:Ken MacLeod), and added some of the quotes. My problem is, I only have German editions of The Star Fraction, The Stone Canal and The Cassini Division, so I`m not able to add original quotes. Greetings!, --Meile 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Danke schön! For the moment, begin by moving over the quotes from the Wikipedia article and put a link on the page, please. --Orange Mike 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mike - I'm curious as to why you are so against the changing of the ranking to 2008. If you check out the link, you will see that it is clearly labeled as "Best Colleges 2008". Regardless of when it was published, that is their ranking for 2008. I'm not about to change it, but it seems pretty cut-and-dried from my POV. Cheers, PaddyM 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why you're taking such a strong stand. I guess the entire title of the rankings could be quoted, but that seems to be overkill. Think of it like a car's model--year x+1 comes out in year x, and no one calls it an "x model year car."

00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the article said, "In U.S. News & World Report's ranking of national universities in 2008" and that's not true. 2008 hasn't happened yet. USN&WR said this in 2007. By 2008, UW-Madison might have shut down because of our state's budget deadline; or USN&WR might issue new rankings based on the teachings of its owner's guru. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shouldn't falsely say something happened in 2008 when it happened in 2007. (I'm a historian; these things matter to me.) If, for some reason I don't understand, you really itch to put 2008 in the article, then yes, quote the full name of the article we're talking about, which includes the magic product of (2x2x2x251); just don't say they published it in 2008. --Orange Mike 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Josh 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is full of

04:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My impersonator

Hey, thanks for noticing that troll had forged a signature block. I have to say, I wonder who that was... --Hyperbole 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for getting it off my Talk page, Orange Mike. Afaprof01 00:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do right and love the Lord, right? --Orange Mike 12:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize. Perhaps a note should be made at the top of that article to reflect that.--

22:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on September 21. I believe there are references in practically every sentence of my aritcle and a list external references listed below. Perhaps you can explain why the question of refernces was raised in regards to my article.Stephen 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. --Orange Mike 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I took your suggestion and read the Wiki material on references. I also looked at a number Wiki pages on contemporary composers. The material in my article is all quite recent and the only references are on other web sites that confirm the information. There are no books (other than Marquis Who's Who) that list the information however, there are some magazine aritcles and some reviews which to which I have provided links. I will be happy to list these sources are references if that will solve the problem. Please note that on the pages for Mark Isham, Bill Conti and David Shire who are all major film composers, only links are offered, no references. I know also that many of my colleagues list only external links so I find it hard to see the consistency in all this. Will listing some of the information on the external links as refernces solve the problem and allow for the removal of the tag on my page? Thank you for your help with this matter.Stephen 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. --Orange Mike 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read that page probably a hundred times, and never saw that. - Rjd0060 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I learned about it the day I helpfully created a "sea of blue" on a dab page, and got my hand slapped by a more experienced editor. --Orange Mike 21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a good thing; now I have more I can do! - Rjd0060 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Faculty refers to professors of all the ranks, usually tenured or tenure-tracked. It doesn't refer to sport coach. FYI. Coasilve 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my page, man! --Endless Dan 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the COI tags you mentioned belong there. COI is specifically aimed at subjects or people close to them editing said article. It doesn't have anything to do with sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking at it again, I decided to block the accont as a role account. I don't believe they were trying to promote the company with their username, since they made a lot of edits and only mentioned their website one time. But, the behavior is definitely questionable. And what really made me suspicious was the way they kept referring to themselves as "we" rather than "I" - definitely a multi-person account. Mangojuice^talk 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into the whole cluster right now. Maybe post on

WP:ANI? Mangojuice^talk

23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from a newbie!

Mike, thanks for your awesome explanation how signatures should be used. What a great "random act of kindness"! Best wishes to you, Electrobrad 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wish I could claim credit, but it's a common enough notice that there is a template to do it with. I just figured I'd let you know. --Orange Mike 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the article, I don't get it but it was interesting. I dunno if I ever wanna come across a group of you guys in a dark alley though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdan (talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC) agrarian nomads

Well thats a relief. I was worried you were a member of the non-agrarian nomad riff-raff. --Endless Dan 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right..I was trying to

18:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Username

I mis-apprpriated the word filk (because I like the word) as a stand in for the fan community that appears to be insisting on a colorful, but un-encyclopedic, non-reliable sourced, POV ridden article for Nicoll - that when a real AfD comes up - will not be able to provide proof of notability because the article will be filled with lists of 'people who have been eaten by brain eaters', poems about cats, someone saying they heard he tells a good story, etc. etc. rather than on providing substance to the claim that Nicoll is an influential figure within the genre of SF. The claim of influence in the genre was cited by the admin as the major reason for the KEEP decision in the AfD, and yet within the current article there is but one author refernced as being influenced by Nicoll. Hardly a place to argue notability from. SavingJDNfromthefilk 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to explain the place of Nicoll in science fiction culture to somebody who doesn't understand the way it distributes honor. Last year a retired motion picture projectionist in Downstate Illinois died; and sorrow spread across the planet's SF community, because that guy was Wilson Tucker. Now Tucker, as it happens, did some of his work in forms that the mundane world recognizes: books published by commercial presses, etc. Yet his fame long pre-dated his commercial semi-success. Some of the field's most honored names are people who've never made a commercial sale in their lives, but have done their work through the fannish modes of communication: correspondence, fanzines, Usenet postings and now blogs. Science fiction is unique as a genre in that it is shaped and influenced on a daily basis by the fan community, which in this field includes many if not most of the professionals (editors, publishers, and above all authors), not just a bunch of passive observing amateur cheerleaders. Nicoll is one of those folks whose fame (mostly due to the "English vocabulary") quote has spread to the mundane world; to see people denying that even he is notable, is to say that the entire field of science fiction is to be restrained to the portion of the iceberg peeking above the ocean into mundane notice. --Orange Mike 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But there are ways to show his influence other than cat poems, and those ways need to be searched out and made known.SavingJDNfromthefilk 17:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But you keep rejecting the sources provided because they are not sufficiently 19th- or early-20th-century in medium. Our celebrities don't appear on

Baen's Bar and on dozens of Usenet newsgroups and e-mailing lists. --Orange Mike

17:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do reject an individual's post on Usenet as being a 'reliable source' for anything other than the fact that the individual made that statement on Usenet. Anyone can claim anything in a post.

Wikipedia is what wikipedia is - a collection of notable

WP:NPOV

material* and those who want to make it something else should take there desire for something else and go somewhere else. Claims of "but I am different/special/shouldn't have to/can't possibly" follow the guidelines don't really hold much water for me.

If sources that satisfy

WP:RS

can't be provided, then those who care so much about the subject matter should gather their information in some place that doesnt have as stringent requirements.

(*or at least it attempts to be those, and without those guidelines enforced as strictly as possible, I question whether WP would be worth anything at all)SavingJDNfromthefilk 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh

I noticed your comment about alumni writing articles about their universities. It is a fair comment. Since I'm an alumni who wrote a large majority of the UW-Oshkosh article, would you please review the article to see if it's written NPOV. Thanks! Royalbroil 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the singular of "alumni" is "alumnus" or "alumna" according to gender... Seriously, though, no problem; I've got union sisters and brothers who work for Local 579 there. --Orange Mike 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien fandom

I agree the external links are excessive, but in some cases, what is needed is to find notable coverage and integrate them into the article. A few histories have been written of Tolkien fandom, so it should be possible. Eventually! Carcharoth 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

AKACE Networks is INCORRECT

Hi Mike, I realize you are probably going for accuracy, but KACE NEtworks was the name of teh company unitl 2005...It is now KACE. Please review thier website and let me know anyplace you see KACE NEtworks. I will go ahead and revert. Let me konw if you disagree

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawley23 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Go to www.kace.com; look at the bottom of the page. "Copyright 2007 KACE Networks, Inc. All rights reserved" --Orange Mike 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dhawley23 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Are You Always Advocating Censorship?

You ask if I'm impolite when someone "points out a problem with an article", yet as I said in my "impoliteness", it's the trick of trying to censor information wholesale, because of some alleged technical problem or factual error in a specific subset of it, that is poor editorship, implying a POV bias. You could have simply changed

the article to correct the small objection you had, and yet you nominated it for deletion, instead, actually a more involved process, implying you prefer the wholesale censorship over simply fixing the problem. --Kaz

16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The "fix" for an article which has been created in violation of the WP standards, is the deletion of the entire article; that is not censorship, that is the enforcement of standards. This does not imply a bias, if at some future date there is a valid reason to create such an article. I still object to your refusal to grant me the common courtesy of an assumption of good faith. --Orange Mike 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, just popping in as an uninvolved editor. Is it possible that both of you could please focus more on discussing the article, and not on each other's perceived shortcomings? Also, Orange, as regards these comments:[4][5] -- I'm not seeing the gross rudeness that you're accusing Kazvorpal of. If you're going to make strong accusations of rudeness, it's usually best to include a diff of what you're talking about. If you're aware of comments that Kazvorpal has made which violate

WP:CIVIL, I am open to reviewing them, but until then, as I mentioned above, it's probably going to be more effective to stick to discussing the article, instead of each other. Just my $0.02, --Elonka

16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::: As the son of a newspaperman, and a writer myself, I consider the accusation of "censorship" to be one of the most uncivil accusations that can be made against an editor. I'll cheerfully agree, however, that the article should be the focus of all our efforts. --Orange Mike 16:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.  :) --Elonka 17:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I understand that it's a hot-button issue on multiple levels. BTW, do you ever use IMs? --Elonka 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

IMs? Not me, unless it's late and I'm in gmail when somebody shows up as online that I wanted to talk to. I'm also orangemike there; big surprise! --Orange Mike 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unseen character

To which AfD are you referring? This particular article underwent an AfD in August, which it passed. Tijuana Brass 04:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On the edit page, it says that the article "List of unseen characters" was deleted. Is it possible that you meant to delete that article but instead deleted this article "Unseen Character". If so, since the AfD Discussion for this article resulted in "Keep", the article should be restored. 24.57.37.75 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referencing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unseen characters, which other editors felt had been recreated as Unseen character. See the discussion on Talk:Unseen character and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to deal with a repost of a deleted article that's been hidden in another article? --Orange Mike 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Administratorship

Honestly, the thought has never occured to me. I doubt I have the range of editing experience that would get me through the RfA. Do you disagree? ---

The'FortyFive'

18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A good friend of mine, a long-standing and active editor, suggested I wait a few months. I think I will follow his advice. Perhaps later in the winter or the spring. Thanks for your consideration. ---

The'FortyFive'

19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

^{Superscript text} The reason I added an underscore was because even though there was a space in the link between "Scientific" and "racism", the space didn't appear on the real article, so I thought to make it clear, I'll just put an underscore there instead. Eisenhower 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after the Onion. EndlessDan 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was. To someone who doesn't know anything about Ulysses or James Joyce, the information seems trivial. A quick note about the fact that its often considered the best book of its century shows the impact this independent bookstore had on literary history.

04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your objection would make sense to me if I had added a huge amount of review or included information about its plot or something. Before my edit, the section said, "This independent bookstore published a book that was banned in the United States and the United Kingdom." After my edit, the section said, "This independent bookstore published a banned book that is now considered one of the best books of the 20th century."

Also, "clean up" seems like a rather uncivil way to characterize our disagreement, but I'm sure you didn't mean to phrase it that way.

Atropos

04:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see your point. I guess my POV is that the excess information clutters up the article with data that a simple click of the wikilink would provide, clutter which another editor might remove; and declutter="clean up". I'm sorry if my choice of words offended. --Orange Mike 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont appriciate you refering to my invite as "vandalism" - I would appriciate it if you would modify your edit.--Vintagekits 21:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Millbanks felt it was vandalism and Protestant-baiting. If it was intended as a serious invitation, you should have written it in comprehensible English, instead of ungrammatic text. I did say "apparent" vandalism, based on the poor language and impression received by Millbanks; I see no need to retract it. --Orange Mike 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are a little out of order with that comment also - and I note another conversation above when you called another editors vandalism. Millbank has edited a number of articles that are part of the Irish republicanism project so he has any obvious interest in the area, I have left that invite on loads of individuals talk pages or do you think that only Irish republicans should join the project? I dont!

As for you insult that I was "Protestant-baiting" I take that accusation very serious, I am not sure if you think that Irish republicanism is about Catholic's v Protestant's, if you do then I would suggest that your knowledge of the issue is largely superficial and the likes of

Theobald Wolfe Tone

many others would have take issue with you! I would challenge you to produce ONE comment that I have made that is in anyway disparaging of any of the protestant religions.

Finally your other insult that about my incomprehensible English and ungrammatic text - I not that I have a stray "s" in article - but apart from that what was it that was soooo confusing?

If you think that you above post is acceptable behaviour then I am not sure what else to say to you.--Vintagekits 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: Millbanks, not I, felt that it was vandalism and Prod-baiting; all my summary said was "apparent" vandalism; and in retrospect, I wish I'd phrased it more moderately (I'll give you that; see strikeout above). The language in question, "Feel free you come along and help out here! Choose one articles and help improve that!!!" is certainly not grammatical, and resembles poor machine-translation from some other language (probably not Erse), and seemed too garbled to be a simple invitation. And as a lifelong Protestant and republican myself, I am amused by your presumption in lecturing me on the Martyrs and Heroes of Irish Freedom who were Protestants, Starting with Wolfe Tone Himself; my poor Manx wife is tired of my canned lecture on that topic, which has burnt the ears of many an INA idjit at IrishFests and elsewhere for almost thirty years now. I recommend the song "Protestant Men" as sung by The Wolfe Tones.

So here's to those great Protestant Men

Who gave their lives to free our land

All the people sang their praises then

For those brave United Irishmen --Orange Mike 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave it at that then - all I will say (at the risk of being repetative) is that I am not sure how I could be "Prod baiting" when I have never mentioned religion to Millbanks, infact I doubt in the 1,000's of edits I have made ever made an edit with regards to anything about religion - and finally how do you know I am not a protestant!? Like I said, I'll leave it there.--Vintagekits 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll decline for now. I'm happy doing what I'm doing and kibitzing from the sidelines.  :) Corvus cornix 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the support. If the allow creation change causes extra problems, I'll reconsider my stance, but I haven't written many articles from scratch and don't have any FAs, so there will be some opposition to me from those who think admins should be super-editors. Corvus cornix 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the quick answer! From what you say, it seems that the Wisconsin town is quite similar to the township of my native Ohio, which I understand decently well. Apparently they're a little more organised, as our townships don't have the Factfinder listings that enabled the Demographics sections on Wisconsin town articles. This should make it easy to complete the templates when I get around to them. Nyttend 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not too hard to tell that I'm still on your watchlist - I wouldn't call it a coincidence that The Maternal Order of St. Eve got tagged after my discussion with Elkman about the Mother Superior ;-) Acroterion _(talk) 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page about my edit of

06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

I've seen you around a lot, and you are unlikely to abuse admin tools. Would you like me to nominate you to be an administrator?

talk

20:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

BLUSH! I didn't know folks thought I was ready. If you believe I'm fit to wield the Mop-and-Bucket, go ahead and nominate. I warn you: some folks may think I'm a little too brusque. But I'm a Quaker, and believe in consensus: I defer to the collective judgement of the body. Honest criticism is good for the soul. --Orange Mike 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer the questions and accept

talk

20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw at your RfA that you believe this IP is a sockpuppet of

00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, the IP has now been blocked for a week for sockpuppetry. WJBscribe said that it was very obvious, but is wasn't that clear to me. If it weren't for you commenting on that IP, it probroly never would have been blocked. Good work!--

U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.

06:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, I see someone took care of him already :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the comments I'm seeing, I would tend to agree. However, as a nod to

01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was a sincere difference of opinion on his part, I would applaud and admire your effort. Sadly, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I'll put a little background on your talk page. --Orange Mike 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. If another sock pops up, it looks like it won't take long to handle. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For detecting IP sockpuppetry.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Be honest. There are no major issues, so you will get promoted. Don't worry:)--

20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I admire that you have acknowledged your weaknesses. I wish all could be like that. Again, the issue you have is not great, so not many will oppose because of it. God bless.--

SJP

21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question on my user talkpage, but I have one for you: have you got a special interest in publisher's readers? --Paularblaster 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a book reviewer myself, and have a number of friends and acquaintances in publishing. I think people outside the trade don't understand what a role first readers play therein. --Orange Mike 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

re: I really think a lot more redundant shared material needs to be deleted from the articles on this and the other books and moved into the articles about the 1632 universe as a whole. It's just plain bloating the articles, and making us look like a bunch of listcrufting fanboys. I'm sorry, but I felt somebody had to BE BOLD here; I wish you hadn't restored so much stuff. --Orange Mike 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The restoration, was temporary at best... there is a need to evaluate some representations side by side on paper copies imho.

I actually quite agree and strongly at that— but don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, hence the "restoral". Sorry, meant to drop you a note (sooner) but was neck deep in three or five related edits in different tabs.

Some of the pages—as is— can be used in a better place and way, which is why I'd rather trim CAREFULLY for now. I'm also contemplating inclusion of sections by selecting key paras using parser functions to test around page names. (See for example: {{ifequal}} potential in that manner coupled with includeonly/noinclude/onlyinclude blocks)

The big priority to me is compendium pages which make it possible to write much more tersely in main articles, since linked information is amplifying, as it were. Hence my focus for the near term is on 1632 characters and 1632 institutions (end eventually, probably 1632 battles and 1632 places, so the good writing can be conserved AND linked. Care to join me? The second needs lots of attention and composition, and currently some wikimarkup is affecting some of the section edit links in the characters page--a temporary thing (probably a misplaced ref block).

In short, for the first time in the three years since I began working on these articles I have the time now to attend to fully implementing the stubs (synopses and plot summaries are way late!) and integrating the batch is certainly on my tasking list. I think I commented to wwoods just the other day about the repetition, which is to say, I'm disliking it too, but not at the expense of rewriting something "good" that can be moved and used elsewhere. In short, a little more time isn't going to be all that harmful.

It'd be a big help if someone else were working in dribs and drabs to put up summaries and synopses, (citations too!) and character profiles (when I've got the inuse off the page). Redlinked character names will be fine in such, as I can "clean along behind" as it were. Take a good look at 1632 series templates and bear in mind, Rome took a while to build too! <g> Cheers and nice to meetchya! // FrankB 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Nothing has been done to address the bloated state of these articles, full of boilerplate not about the novels but about the 1632 series in general. You reverted my bold edit, but nothing has been done about it. Suggestions? --Orange Mike 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot has been done, but it's indirect... putting the infrastructure in place so we can reference a character in 1632 characters, a section in one of the anthologies (e.g. {{subst:ROF-1|s="Here Comes Santa Claus"}}, a term that has significance in the neohistory (1632 series battles, 1632 institutions, and so forth) as well as adding content, in particular in the anthologies which have been neglected per usual practice since day one. \

As that all goes together, trimming the articles becomes easier and easier as one need not explain there, but link.

Had one setback though, Afd killed one important spacesaver and we're going to have to appeal that. Wish this society would growup and face the fact not everyone has time to watch a watch list. Notifications of long standing pages nominated for any Xfd ought be mandantory!

I was looking at that one this morning at 3:00ish (and thinking of you! <g>) and figured I'd pare it down this afternoon. Right now I have to fixup a bunch of templates first. By the weekend for sure, as I'm off on vacation come saturday.

I really should do something today to make a living too. Both my boys are enterng college the next two years and I need new wheels! (Bad timing! <g> What else is new in a full life?) Does that all make sense and is it satisfactory? // FrankB 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Message received and understood. --Orange Mike 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While it shouldn't have been mentioned in

23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point? I'd class them both as obscure. --Orange Mike 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you view all webcomics as obscure, then this should be sufficient: [6] --68.161.181.48 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I find those figures startling to the point of suspicious. But then, I'm more a Girl Genius reader myself. --Orange Mike 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of it. --68.161.183.85 08:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that the Category:Wikipedians in the Society for Creative Anachronism was up for deletion? Any views on the matter? --Paularblaster 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus in Wikipedia seems to be for purging all such affiliational user categories. It would be COI for me to say that the Society should be exempt from this purge. --Orange Mike 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well things like boy scouts have been trimmed a little but otherwise moved wholesale from "Wikipedians by organization" to "Wikipedians with an interest in scouting". There are a couple of professional bodies up for deletion that I tend to think should be kept as an "expertise" thing (but perhaps under "Wikipedians by profession" rather than "Wikipedians by organization") - not being an electrical engineer or a psychologist I can say so without COI. I don't really know what the SCA is (although I'm guessing it's an umbrella organization for things like the Sealed Knot), and have no opinion myself as to its usefulness as a "wikipedians" category. That's really why I asked: to find out what you, as a member of such a category, thought of its usefulness or desirability (regardless of consensus). --Paularblaster 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The SCA isn't an "umbrella organization" for much of anybody but its own branches; the Sealed Knot and such are much more narrow in focus and much more serious about the whole thing than the typical SCAdian (we did arise from science fiction fandom, after all; if it ain't fun, stop playing). We were here before just about of all those folks, though. SCAdians are interested in the Medieval and/or Renaissance eras, but there are userboxen for that; so it's hard for me to argue that we have a special claim for cat preservation over, say, Masons or Democrats (U.S. sense). --Orange Mike 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AH, right. Where do I get myself an interested in the Renaissance userbox? --Paularblaster 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be {{User:UBX/Renaissance}} --Orange Mike 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Paularblaster 12:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi OrangeMike,

I am interested in the tone problem you detect in the Engelmann article. Can't see what you are referring to. Grant Park —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Park (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike,

Thank you very much for your reply. In it you said:

"The problem with the article is that it reads like a biographical essay, rather than the drier, more factual tone appropriate to an encyclopedia article. My first guess would be that parts of it may have been lifted or closely paraphrased from his autobiography; at least, that is the appearance they present. --Orange Mike 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)"

I don't know what a biographical essay is, but am sure the author--like Lincoln--would be content that his legs meet the ground. As for "lifting" parts or closely paraphrasing from his autobiography, that is far off the mark. Engelmann's next of kin read it, colleagues who knew him read it, outsiders who did not know him but knew his work read it, but no one suggested anything untoward, let alone plagiarism. Someone did offer punctuation tips, but they went unheeded.

Since you are familiar with UW-Milwaukee, you might run the article past Wayne Youngquist, on Milwaukee T.V., to see if he finds fault with it. If anyone knows where mistakes might be found, it would be Youngquist, who knew Engelmann since the 1960s. In the meantime it would be nice if you left the banner off unless you can find something sufficiently specific to be corrected.

Thanks a million,

GWP

Just thought I'd let you know that I've created a stub for Jack Speer. Feel free to expand. Shsilver 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a call for deletion on most of the Firefly character articles. -- Shsilver (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for your reply to my question re. the Tim Ryan submission. Just want to clarify...how much information is needed to denote notability? I ask because, along with documenting Dr. Ryan's accomplishments during his career with The Culinary Institute of America, the original article also included the following:

"He holds the distinction of being the youngest national president of the American Culinary Federation (ACF), elected at age 36, and at 26 he became the youngest person ever to receive Master Chef certification from that organization. Chef Ryan has also served as ACF vice president and chairman.

He was named the ACF’s 1998 Chef of the Year and is one of just five Americans ever to receive the Presidential Medal from the World Association of Cooks Societies. He also captained the U.S. Culinary Olympic Team to a world championship, and has won numerous Gold Medals in international competitions throughout his career.

A native of Pittsburgh, PA, Dr. Ryan earned his doctorate degree in education from The University of Pennsylvania and bachelor’s and M.B.A. degrees from the University of New Haven, CT."

Those are some notable honors and accomplishments in the food world. Do I need to somehow expand upon that information, or present it a different way? I appreciate your attention and advice on this. Thanks again. -- Jnormy (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not from you of course, but I have encountered aggro from merely commenting on this article, like never before. Thanks for your explanation, but I am not the first to suggest it's not encyclopedia material and suggest it's deletion. It may be 'the best/most well known on the planet' or whatever, but it has not really been mentioned in

) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean anything disparaging by the term 'sci-fi' which I expect most people would just view as a shortened way of saying the term, with no other implication than that- which it is and that's how I meant it- as most people who use it, intend it to mean. Having looked at the sources again they are not so bad, as they include some books. I suppose it is the same with any subculture that they are at a push allowed to explain the notability of the subject although the sources would not meet the same type of

WP:RS as those desired from most Wikipedia articles. It could be compared to articles about Denise Channing and other occultists, just to compare to another subculture who are allowed to decide the notability of their groups etc. As you can see on the talk page, I'm by far from the first editor to doubt the BSFG article's suitability to be on wikipedia, and you must appreciate that they have very little profile in the world for those that are not into these things. As to the BBC, they cover all sorts depending on their whim, they've covered Hacker conferences in Brum, for instance. I was sure they covered a sci-fi conference in Brum, years ago, one that had lots of Dr.Who stuff in it? Maybe that was just in my mind lol.:)-- Merkinsmum (talk

) 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The odds are very high that that was a Dr. Who convention for media fans, not an actual "literary" science fiction convention like Novacon. That kind of thing, sadly, the visual media are always eager to cover (however incompetently). --Orange Mike 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your latest comment on my talk page, for which I thank you, a guidline on wikipedia is 'notability is not inherited', -people with their own article being involved in the fandom would at the most only merit a mention in their article, rather than giving a group its own article. As to fandom inspiring the works- again, those works have their own articles, and it is the works that may have been written about in

WP:RS- such as being reviewed in broadsheets etc- see what I mean? Subcultures seem to be allowed to say what is important in their sphere regardless of whether it has the sources expected of other articles though- so maybe the article will stay.-- Merkinsmum (talk

) 22:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's part of what being in a subculture means: the cultural hegemonists control access to the broadsheets, etc. and the "fringe" populations are marginalized and told, "Well, you people aren't important or you'd be publicized in the serious press and not just your little pamphlets." The serious press, of course, is too busy covering Paris Hilton and a bunch of other upper-class twits. --Orange Mike 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Feeling bitter about that?:) (just joking) It's the way of the world I suppose. There's the same problem for instance on articles about New Agers etc, they tend to be deleted as a form of advertising even if they are completely disparaging. Having said that things that we're involved in, no matter how obscure, seem more important to us than they do to others. I don't understand why more people I meet elsewhere in life or on forums don't edit on Wikipedia, for instance- or maybe they do but don't feel it would be cool to admit it.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Murkey Depths" magazine

Here are the UK Google results for Murkey Depths. They don't establish enough notability for an article on the magazine but I thought they should be enough to verify it exists for the list of British magazines in the Science fiction magazine article. I did consider not adding it as there have only been two issues (promo issue zero and issue 1) so far but the list has several magazines with only one issue. I've not edited much in this type of area before, is a separate reference needed and if so is it better from the magazine's website or one of the other sites in order to show it is an actual magazine?

I added it to the list (along with Hub Magazine) because the list stopped at 1977, with a sentence about interzone at the bottom, this seemed to be an incomplete view of this type of magazine in Britain. I have to admit I don't know if there have been any others published between 1977 and 2005 but if I find any I was planning to add them to the list (and also one currently being produced in Ireland once I found the right place in the article for it). If more verification is needed before inclusion let me know so I can include the right information before adding anymore magazines to the article. --Kaly99 (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken to your talk page. (Note that the actual name of the magazine is Murky Depths, not Murkey Depths.)--Orange Mike 13:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Orangemike.

) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

uh.. i didn't know this page exestied and im new so i wrote on your user page--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC) uh bottm of page--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

dude dragons need a rewrite i agree but you can look at my opinos therebut come on goerge bush is the best presdint ever man!. hey drop a line. um.. the bush thing was a friendly debate.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (the door mat is your sand box)--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) uh press talk.

I'm a historian, and feel the younger Bush will go down in the rolls of legendary incompetence, corruption and degradation of the Constitution beside Harding, Grant and Buchanan. (All of which, of course, is irrelevant to the article under discussion; I'll look at your comments under Dragon.) --Orange Mike 13:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

your right it is irrelevent. but on the dragons it could be hard to read at the very least the arrticle needs to be sorted and maybe placed under the title commen mythical creatures —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) how do i mak the multi colored boxes with the pictures? to put on the youser page Like: "pic of" computer, this user has a mac"--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are called "userboxes." Read Wikipedia:Userboxes for more. --Orange Mike 05:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you! i don't have time to elaborate but will you help me with something? if yes, watch this blog closely.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand. I write the lastname, right? So it puts the name in the right letter in the category. If their are two with the same surname, then... it gous authomatically by the name. Plus please understand, categorisation isn't easy. It's not easy to find the people. So all that + adding the name and this confusing thing? I work alone and all this is hard for me. More people should help.

) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what happens. If you just put in the last name, then only the last name appears in the category list, even if a DEFAULTSORT has been set up to automatically add the whole name. --Orange Mike 21:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing so many wikilinks? Not everyone reading these articles is going to have the same educational background (or the same knowledge of English; and most folks are urged to do more wikilinking, not less, when writing articles. --Orange Mike 04:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that anyone who is looking up a specific novel at Wikipedia is bound to know what a novel is. Also while I do realize that not everyone has a high school education I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know what a high school is and actually feels the need to look it up. There really is such a thing as too much linking. It really should be used for specific things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs)

While I wouldn't have put in a couple of these links myself, I figure it does no harm to leave them in. We've all got better things to do with our time. --Orange Mike 04:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive linking drives me batty. However, I'll try and restrain myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike, I've removed your speedy A7 tag from this one. It certainly seems to assert notability and some websearching shows he's more notable that the Speedy criteria. I do see though that the same author created another article that's been repeatedly deleted and now is protected. I'd suggest Afd as a path if you disagree - Peripitus (Talk) 05:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see your point about the speedy. We'll also need to move the article, of course, since titles don't belong in article names. --Orange Mike 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Help me Hoary is driving me crazy for no reason Artintegrated (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Mike, and thank you. How's that mop? Enjoying it? It's quite cool for the first few days with the big fat "delete" button hanging over the main page isn't it!!!! If you need any help or advice on anything in the world of admin let me know. Thanks again for your support and kinds words over this, err...., unfortuante incident. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok cool Thanks Mike.. Now I'm starting to get a hang of this wikipedia.

Have a great week to you... --PATRICK RIBBSAETER (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, this is my first time trying to contribute and im sorry my caps lock got stuck also on a page like this do i start commenting on top or at the bottom Jlarsgard (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Always at the bottom. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to leave a talkpage message after blocking usernames - I'm having to re-train myself as well. Acroterion _(talk) 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I use Twinkle, which grew extra buttons and warnings when I got the sysop bit - very useful. For you Luddites, look through

WP:WARN; or use {{subst:uw-ublock}} for softblocks and {{subst:uw-uhblock}} for hardblocks. Acroterion _(talk)

18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I do have a bizarre memory/Congrats

I have a bit of a prolific memory, and as soon as I first saw your picture in the Wikipedians with images I thought to myself "I saw him on Ben Stein, like, ten years ago." Sure enough, 'tis you. Congrats on the winnings; Stein is a tough cookie. Keegan^talk 06:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As an uppity plebeian, I was particularly proud to wrestle him to an intellectual and psychological tie. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (co-founder and lobbyist, Tennesseans to Impeach Nixon)

I've always enjoyed watching that show. I'd love to watch your episode. I've probably seen it. Royalbroil 06:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My chromatic affiliation makes me easy to spot. I'm told it was one of the amusing games for the press at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, kinda like

Where's Waldo?. --Orange Mike | Talk

15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it! My curiousity has gotten the best of me. Do you wear blaze orange during Wisconsin's deer hunting season or do you stick with the bright orange? Royalbroil 15:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wear whatever orange garb I can find in my full-figured sizes. Much hunting gear, of course, is too heavy for indoor wear. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"In the meantime, do not remove a tag such as ^{[citation needed]} or ^[where?] unless you are also answering the query. "

I did. Re the two tags you restored:

1. Geneva is now a link to the Geneva (city, Switzerland) page. If you think that this needs to say Geneva, Swizterland - you may be right, but that's another matter. I thought that in a hypertext system a link is sufficient, ymmv - whatever wiki policy is is fine. If you merely think the "Geneva, Swizterland" is better as a matter of style, might I suggest that you make such edits yourself? That's what collaborative writing is about. I won't be hurt - honest!

2. Re the ten million dollar watch, as I wrote on the Talk Page, the source for that is the same as the source given for every other fact in the opening - which is sourced at the end of the opening. Why this one fact of twenty or so was singled out as unsourced I have no idea. Plus sourcing for paragraphs is a standard convention. While I appreciate your helpfulness, if a tag is removed and you don't understand why, it probably is a good idea to check the Talk Page. If people don't check them, other people won't use them. (As a coder I have a big thing about creating and using comments.)

I'll leave you a day or three to remove the tags yourself or to contact me if you think there is still a problem, otherwise I'll remove them again, as they now seem to be mis-leading. Umptious (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that source [7] you just placed is usable. It takes me to an Off Campus Access page that requires me to input a UWM ID and my last name. So unless you're student or faculty there with a UWM ID, you can't use that page. Your thoughts? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the best I had (I are a UWM student). The same information appears in the hardcopy 45th (2007) edition of Ulrich's Periodicals Directory on page 12,350, if you wanna convert that into a footnote instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am assuming that you made this revert because the source was the website of the subject of the article, however I've reverted back as the information seems to be within the guidelines of

) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

clause 3 (I think) of

WP:SELFPUB: "it is not unduly self-serving"! Newspapers live and die by circulation figures. This (admittedly COI) editor has provided no source for his claims. Please revert your revert. --Orange Mike | Talk

17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is only a difference of 2,000 between the two sources. I don't think that is unduly, especially since the source you reverted to doesn't work. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

COI editor's claim is 13% higher; that's statistical significance in my textbooks. But yeah, the ref should be changed to a hardcopy reference (I provided the details on the talk page). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading that. Well, it appears that it is all a matter of opinion (what isn't, right?). I would say that a 2,000 difference isn't really "unduly". If it were claiming hundreds of thousands, probably would be unduly. But 2,000 seems like such a minuscule amount. I have searched all over for a better source, but cannot find one. I'd like to think that the JFP isn't "lying" about their number,

who knows, I guess. What do you purpose at this point (without saying to revert my edit)? I'd hate to open an RfC for this. - Rjd0060 (talk

) 17:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep coming back to "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Ulrich's qualifies; "this is what we claim on our website" doesn't. Certainly nobody wants a revert war here. I'd say use the published source, or delete any figures whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ulrich source does not work. I get a message saying "Due to software licensing restrictions, copyright limits and other contractual arrangements, you must be authenticated as a UWM student, staff or faculty member in order to access this library resource from your current location. Please sign in with the form below.". - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I know; that's why, if we revert, we should use the hardcopy version of Ulrich's, which I verified a few minutes ago. (See previous item on this page.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the

22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA, and thanks for your endorsement in mine! Have fun learning to use the new buttons. Acroterion _(talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You might want to visit

the new admin school, if you haven't already by the time you see this. It was very helpful to me. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations man! Here's a t-shirt. :) GlassCobra 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a great job fighting vandals and socks.--

U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.

02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Echoing the support of my esteemed colleagues, Congratulations! Remember that socks come in pairs. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your adminship. —Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, Happy Thanksgiving.

In response to the comment that you left on my page yesterday, I'm not prone to disagree with you. Any scheme which defines human complexion based on the archetype of color gradients is often subjective given the variability of interpretation. Hence, such terms are always elastic since it is never a description of something literally observed. It is clear however, that regardless people are either identified and/or choose to identify under such labels. Within that context, you either have an opinion on it or not, but no amount of circular reasoning would be able to definitively prove you wrong given the noted subjectivity involved in describing this variability.

What is important is self-identification and biogeographic ancestry/population relationships (note: the early indigenous populations of the Nile valley for instance weren't situated anywhere near native American populations of the same era). One would also indeed be supporting a false dichotomy as well, when subscribing to such modern and fixated terms as "Black Africa/n", yet arbitrary exclude certain populations with similar ancestry to those whom which it is applied. That's basically the crux of that in my opinion.Taharqa (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments. I hope things go well with you now being an administrator. My congratulations. RFD (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, congratulations from a second WikiProject Wisconsin member! You've earned the mop, as I have commented in your RfA. I'll let you know if I need help with "cleanup on aisle 13". Royalbroil 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just became an admin too! I didn't want to feel like I was canvassing your support when I posted the last message. WikiProject Wisconsin has two admins in less than one week! I watched your RfA for a while before I decided to run to better understand the process. Royalbroil 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for stopping my bot... I'm not 100% sure what went wrong there... I'll have a look at it, and iron it out, however... Thanks, again :) SQL^{Query me!} 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Give a guy fifteen minutes to add some categories, OK? Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite the coarse language above, I'm inclined to agree that an ambassador representing his country is notable in the case of

Kingdon Gould, Jr. Please take it up at AfD if you disagree. Royalbroil

18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna blame the guy for getting a little honked off; he just forgot to post a hangon tag. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you made more edits to this article than almost anyone, so let me pose this question to you: An anonymous user just added (I should say readded)

03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, definitely not space opera by any standard I can imagine; revert it. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

the links to most of the references led to the home page of sites not articles related to the candidate for example the home page of the washington times or Green Party. There is clearly no mention of him on either page. the Boca news links didn't work. I thought it clear if a reference link didn't work it can't be a reference because there is no way to verify info. secondly Imperato is not be appearing on the ballot for any green primaries. The candidate lists in several states have already been turned in and highly publicied. The candidate forum hosted by Independent green party has nothing to due with green party. party is seperate from national green party (national party has own state affiliate). While major changes should be disscused on talk pages I started without a plan to edit so much but all of my edits are factual and can be verified through a google search if the spellings bad I'm sorry, dealing with a broken thumb, In future i will disscuss all major edits on talk page Highground79 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A

reliable source does not have to have an internet link. As long as it has the proper kind of information (publication, date, page, etc.) a reference is not invalid just because it's not verifiable online. --Orange Mike | Talk

19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to put business section on bottom of page and was trying to fix when I got your message Highground79 (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I came accross an article you had edited which led me to your user page...I'm your neighbor to the west in Brookfield. Also going to apply for 2008 DNC Convention Delegate in Denver. Any tips? I think i saw you on Win Ben Stein's Money, also. Cheers Shawn (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken to e-mail. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We've had our differences, and I'm sure you know I opposed your RFA, but it passed anyway. Congrats, and use the tools well.

19:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kind of ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I hope to make myself worthy of the trust placed in me. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. My attempt to recreate the FranklinSquires page after it had been speedily deleted was not to circumvent your efforts. It was an attempt to comply with your suggestions. I made a few changes to the page and then created it again thinking I had resolved its issues. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn its rules.

Also, I have made more changes to the once again deleted FranklinSquires page. I want to post these changes to see if I have resolved its issues but have been warned by user loath that a new posting under that page name will lead to the blocking of my account. How can I learn to write a credible Wikipedia page if I only have a few attempts to write one before being threatened to block my account? Bumblebee91 Bumblebee91 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I concur that all entries are not worthy of Wik. inclusion. My intent re Karen Black page was I did feel it noteworthy to supply her debut film info as it was also the beginning of splatter/gore camp Director Herschell Gordon Lewis's career. He is noted in a Wik. page but the two facts are not linked together in the KB page.. Before I could return and add to the page, it had been flagged & removed. Regards, Jangod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangod (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've kind-of been keeping tabs on

) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken to

friendly

) 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Digging through page histories, I've stumbled across some user accounts that have remarkably similar contributions:

Rick koerber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jerhiah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Equity Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tennessee10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Timcharper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bumblebee91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of these accounts' primary contributions have been to articles that were about Claud Koerber or his companies, products, or services. In searching, I also found

friendly

) 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied the deleted the Shank Hall article to my sandbox. I cleaned, expanded and sourced it. I live just north of the Milwaukee TV/radio markets, but I have heard of the hall from numerous national acts that have appeared at the venue. It is one of the few music venues that I have heard of in Milwaukee. Would you review the article in my sandbox? Please comment on my talk page about the notability of hall as asserted in the article. Also, without considering the citations in the draft, state your general impression about the notability of the hall from someone who lives in its county. If you saw this article in new articles, what would your reaction be? Thanks! Royalbroil 04:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm going to leave the article deleted then. I will temporarily restore the article, paste in my edits, and delete it. That way if it does become more notable in the future, a better version can be restored. Royalbroil 15:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already restored the article, pasted my edits, and deleted the article. You can undelete it if you want. I thought that it probably was notable enough or I wouldn't have spend the time researching. The outcome of the research showed that it had marginal notability IMHO. I tend a bit more inclusionalist than you do (and probably a bit more inclusionalist than most). Royalbroil 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm keeping a lookout for

) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due sympathy to the real problems these articles are having from vandals, etc., we can't do that; it's unfair to legitimate IP editors. If they were bad edits, then clarify why they are bad, and put that in your summary; this is not the kind of thing we can do by simple knee-jerk reversion. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the reverts in question have been explained thoroughly on the talkpage of the article. The matter has been discussed and discussed for almost a month now, with the IP taking little notice, his (few) responses were more alike to declarations of personal POV (in Italian), than actual arguments. I just think everyone's fed up with trying to get this guy to talk and modify his POV.

--

TALK

) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike, I just noticed the tag you put on A Small Domain. I was wondering do you think the sources used are bad (I know 1 is imdb...), or just that it needs more sources, or are there specific aspects of the article you think need sourcing? I've just created it so will be working on it more. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise that in many cases IMDb is not reliable. There's been a lot of discussion about it's use as a source. It was my understanding that it was considered more acceptable when it comes to hard facts (for example the awards section). It was also my understanding, (I could be completely wrong) that it was acceptable in an underdeveloped article as a source for non-controversial facts. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe in the importance of verifiability and reliable sources, but I think that for the time it takes me to chase up individual sources for each award, that the IMDb awards page is sufficient. By the time an article gets towards GA or FA, I would expect IMDb not to turn up in the references at all. Other information in the article I got from an interview with the director. When you say it lacks credibility (sorry if I'm being slow here...) are you taking about demonstration of notability, or verifiability? --BelovedFreak 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Orange one!

Just wanted to let you know that I removed your CSD tag on

07:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambassador

All politicians are considered notable. This came up recently on another ambassador-page. Apparently this is covered under

) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing that covers this in

WP:BIO. --Orange Mike | Talk

22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not my assertion. I'll find the diff - another user made this point - in a second.

Jose João (talk

) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here,

Jose João (talk

) 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Macmillan argues that all ambassadors are inherently notable under

WP:BIO, as they qualify as politicians who have held international office. But is that what is meant by "held international office"? I think of the latter as meaning former officials of the United Nations or League of Nations. --Orange Mike | Talk

13:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding my two cents on this, I would ask then, what are the notability guidelines for ambassadors beyond the baseline for every person? I believe that by adding the "international" part in the guidelines they are addressing ambassadors. The reason why we don't have more information on certain ambassadors is not because of their lack of notability, but because of systematic bias. Angola, as a Lusophone and African country, generally is undercovered in the English press, therefore creating gaps. I am going to delete your notability tag because of the reasons stated above and I hope this won't degenerate into an edit war.--

talk

) 15:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

oak-hickory forest

Hi Mike. I'm not sure, but I believe that Oak-Hickory Forest is a proper noun as it describes a geographic region (i.e., Midwest), and a forest ecology type indegenous to North America. I have no preference either way; will defer to your greater experience, but you'll have to go back and fix my over zealous correction.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In the scientific literature, a forest ecology type such as this is not capitalized. There is no such place as "The Oak-Hickory Forest" in the sense that there is, say, Sherwood Forest. These are typologies, and as such are not capitalized. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I did not delete the article as non-notable, but as

) 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. Done. And thanks for the kind words about my little one. Truly the greatest joy I've ever experienced. Pastordavid (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I followed the suggestions by decomposing wikipedia article under my articles. This article is not a guide or mauel work. It outlines in the clearest possible terms the definitions of quality defects found in lenticular productions. Bernard SOULIER (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a new entrant, and I believe sincerely bring something positive to wikipedia and its users. I worked very hard to write this article and I feel assaulted from all sides. I do not understand your hard work and your execution speed, I have the feeling of being something wrong? Why is this censorship, I have no rational explanation, clear and precise. Bernard SOULIER (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your articles, in addition to being a mixture of technical terminology and flawed translation, seem to be technical treatises, a species of

Encyclopedists, whose works did include such treatises. I urge you instead to apply your technical knowledge to the improvement of this encyclopedia's myriad articles on topics where you have expertise which can lend clarity and accuracy to other editors' work. --Orange Mike | Talk

17:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that it is irremediably OR/Howto. I deprodded it to give Bernard the chance to remedy the faults you've identified. Let's give him some time to fix things. If it's still a problem in a week or so, I'll send it to AfD. Best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep thinking the guy's putting a lotta work into this; but I don't see anything in there that's got a place here in Wikipedia. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So do I, for his sake, but I have the feeling that it will turn out to be me that's wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how or why my contretemps with Indiecat over the article Last Exit (film) came to your attention, but, since I decided to step back and seek advice from other editors/admins before doing anything else, I appreciate your stepping in with the COI template and additional remarks on Indiecat's Talk page. If you have any advice on how I could have handled this better, I'm all ears. Also: I used to live in Milwaukee (1991-1998) and went to Renaissance all the time, and I was also an active, year-round volunteer with the late, lamented Planned Parenthood Book Sale at the fairgrounds, so I must have seen you there. How's Renaissance doing these days? Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear orangeMike, Curiosly, suddenly there is another user, it seems a bit suspect. I am also very interested how this came to your attention. I appreciate all contructive additions to the wiki infon. But I dont see how blogs cannot be linked, its not written specifically anywhere. Please help me here. We really dont understand the motivations, and we clearly have no COI. thank you. sincerely, catrina madsen aka Indiecat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiecat (talk • contribs)

Dear OrangeMike, you have admitted to me Skewedshelf has asked you to step in. So he lied when he says he didnt know how you came? Look, it very easy to pick on a small article like this. Do a google on Last Exit movie and you will find a mountain of information regarding this underground movie, so a wiki entry is manditory. Honestly I do not understand this, please please I dont want a reverb war. Its not worth any of our time, is it? sincerely Indiecat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiecat (talk • contribs)

1) Skewedshelf asked another experienced editor for advice and help, and I noticed the request for help, so I stepped in; never heard of the guy before that. Please

19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but from outside it at least looked very strange and arranged , it looks like Skewed had a vendetta on this article, he had not explained to me why only this cult item he focuses on as of yet. But ok he does I accept.

I still hold that the links are notable. Do a google of the little movie and you will see that there is plenty of sources outhere, so why cant you post positive contributions too? and not just delete and remove valuable wiki info. To me thats not fair treatment at all. Give and take is what this project is about.

Im an open minded girl, but still smell this is very negative contribution, certainly ONLY deleting and not adding notable in replace.

sincerely, Indiecat Indiecat (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am attempting to have a dialog on notability, however that is not possible if you censor talk pages (including your own) where I attempt to talk to the people who revert the edits. I feel that clearly shows an unwillingness to take part in dialog on your part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.70.18 (talk • contribs)

There is a rough consensus that most secondary schools are ipso facto notable; and the three schools I saw you editing on would meet the requirements anyway. In the meantime, your edit summaries contained false assumptions ("your school" etc.) which constituted tacit insults. Please refrain from such language, and we can discuss matters of substance instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, providing such at the start of the issue would have saved a lot of time and edits. I shall travel along it to discuss there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.70.18 (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your note to me--was there something in particular that I had posted that inspired you to reply to me?

I was going to get involved in editing the Holocaust page, but that is apparently a hotbed of dissension! I'll instead focus on some peripheral Holocaust topics that are less volatile.

I'm sorry you lost your grad school funding--there are many schools out there that will provide fellowships if you can move to where they are.

Grumpy otter 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You posted a query somewhere about footnote formatting; I'm pretty good at that now. As far as school: I am a middle-aged homeowner and civil servant, whose wife works at the same U (UW-Milwaukee); there is absolutely zero chance of my picking up and moving at my age, in order to become a 60-year-old newly-minted Ph.D. in a post-Reaganomics America.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay--I am trying to add a footnote to the Sobibor extermination camp article, which currently has none. My query has been answered elsewhere, but not well. I cannot tell what I need to add to the notes section to make the citation show up properly. If you could help me out.... I added the first paragraph of the main text of the article that I would like to cite. I got the info from an ARC website, which seems to be a reliable site. At the end of the paragraph, I typed < ref > webaddress </ ref> (of course without the spaces), and the footnote appeared. But if you click on it, it goes nowhere. I don't know what I need to add in the "notes" section to make it work. Thanks!

There is a separate issue--the webaddress I am trying to cite has been blacklisted (they've experienced much vandalism), so I can cite it simply by author and title. Still need to know how! Grumpy otter 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It should look like this (roughly): <ref>[http://www.sampleurl.de/Sobibor Schreklichgeist, August. "Sobibor and the Cultural Context," in ''Festgeschrift für Ole Jonson'', ed. by Baltazar Diogratia. Berlin:Gedankenexperimentpresse, 1991.]</ref> We're pretty freeform about footnote format. The single square bracket, followed by the URL, followed by a single space, followed by the text you wish to display, followed by a closing single square, bracket, should do the job. If you don't have a non-blacklisted URL, then do the same, but omit the square brackets and the URL. The <reference> tag down by notes should then put the note in the table with the text you provided. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! (More on my talk page...) Grumpy otter 11:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And now--how the heck do you search for help topics? I requested that the website be un-blacklisted, but apparently I wasn't logged in at the time, and now I can't find the stupid thing again. I've found this to be a problem generally--if I want to get to the help desk, I have to go through "my contributions." Searches just take me to articles about help desks! Grumpy otter 11:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I replied to this at User talk:Grumpy otter#Reference problem. PrimeHunter 14:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for your swift response. Basilides/"ούκ ών θεός" 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid this[9] edit you made at Socially_responsible_investing. I have no clue what was going on, but whatever you were trying to do, it didn't work. Matchups 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My intended audience for the article was people who are interested in Physics. The general audience may feel bored about the article since it's only about the classification of different physical systems. However, I'll think about how to make the introduction more interesting. Thanks for your opinion. If you have any suggestion, please don't hesitate to let me know. --Thurth 06:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to revert other opinions and questions as well then, other wise your edits appear biased.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request for temporary semi-protection of this redirect since a group of IPs seem intent on reverting it back to the Dab against consensus without discussing. This is becoming vandalism and IMHO - we need to protect from 3RR violations. I've consulted with PaddyM as well on this. master son^{T - C} 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

the page has been fully protected: (see [10]

for details  — master son^{T - C} 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMike: I see you have just added a notability tag for Michael Saward.

Michael Saward's notability is his contribution to late twentieth-century mainstream Christian hymnody. His hymn "Christ triumphant" is well-known across mainstream Christian denominations in English-speaking nations across the world. (He himself is an Anglican priest, and was for many years a canon of St. Paul's Cathedral, London.)

I would suggest that he well-deserving of being notable in accordance of Wikipedia terms of reference. (I've seen various far less notable hymnwriters in Wikipedia.)

Could I ask you to undo the notability question, please? Feline Hymnic 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Ponzi scheme, whether or not it is a "technical term" spreads the "titillating claims" about Koerber. "Securities laws" is the proper usage for the sentence according to Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.219.132 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

HI, you are correct, that is not the right disambiguation, but I was not aware at the time that there was another James Leith in the British Army with a Wikipedia article, because the page did not have at the top