Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Migdia Chinea Varela may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Migdia Chinea-Varela''' (a.k.a. '''Migdia Chinea''', is a ] ] born in ], [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joseph Spaulding may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• society]] and ] which evaluated various brands of ] and ] (bearing such names as "Atkin's Automaton" and "Ketchum's Iron Mower"<ref>[http://digital.library.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joseph Spaulding may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of the Hon. L. B. Caswell'' no pagination]</ref> He returned, and is regarded (along with his brother William Spaulding, who built a farm next to his<ref>''Fiftieth Anniversary

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Help desk

Here is a help desk question that's calling your name. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Boart Longyear page revisions

Hi Orange Mike - I see you changed the Boart Longyear page back to its original version. I work with the company and am simply trying to correct some things in the timeline. We tried to take a very unbiased, fact-based, historical approach when creating the timeline, so if there is a particular area that you felt came across as promotional, please let me know, and I can soften the language. Also, we'd like to upload the approved corporate logo, if possible, but we're not autoconfirmed. Perhaps you could help us with that. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkrantz123 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Johnkrantz123. We welcome your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Boart Longyear, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies.

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

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Mike. I understand Wiki is pretty strict about those who have a relationship to the organization being written about, but the purpose of making these changes was to correct factual errors in the timeline and to correct the issues outlined at the top of the page, where it says "This article has multiple issues." I believe the version you restored is actually quite a bit more promotional than the version I attempted to publish. Is there a third party editor or someone you can direct us to that would work with us to correct these problems? We just want to make sure the correct information is getting out there and that it is unique to what is already out there on the web. I have no intentions of creating advertorial or promotional content, and I am happy to remove any portions that you deem so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkrantz123 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Three things that led to a rejection:

"world's leading provider"

The timeline, written in present tense, replacing the narrative written in past tense.

The bullet-list-style "awards" section, again replacing a narrative.

This discussion should have taken place before you started to edit; and it should take place on the talk page of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. If I change the present tense to past, delete "world's leading" and remove the awards section, will my edits be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkrantz123 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, let's take this to Talk:Boart Longyear. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevada Legislators database

Hi-I just came across the Nevada Legislature database for their legislators. Yeah! Thanks!RFD (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yay, indeed! What's the URL? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:WACorporate

Hi, Orangemike this user has made large changes to WebAssign corporation article. I posted on his talk page but thought something should be done. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brighton Park crossing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brighton Park crossing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Migdia Chinea Varela

Thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of the BLP noticeboard. Please do not have any further contact with Migdia Chinea Varela, including posting on her talk page. This is not an endorsement of her accusations, it is just that your presence will only serve to inflame passions in this matter, and thanks to your bringing this issue to the noticeboard, there are plenty of editors who can handle it now. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible, as she has in fact clearly taken a scunner to me (as they say in the North). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition, may I ask, Orangemike, why you reverted unsourced contentious material back into a biography of a living person? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I was reverting all of her COI edits first, on the principle that some other editor(s) such as yourselves could then go through and see what should stay and what should go; which is what is now going on. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you don't do things like that in future. COI does not overrule BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, OM

I saw the changes you made to the barbeque claims at Lexington, Tennessee. I commented on your edit in the help desk discussion. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User creating article about themself

All help desk items like this should automatically be sent to you. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Apparently, he's just talking about creating an account for himself because the article about him was created in 2008. However, he did say, "I will continue to add content to my page", which I assume means the article. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

However, let's AGF here: maybe he means creating a good solid revelatory userpage! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I considered that for a moment, but I still "assume" (with no ill intent whatsoever) that he is in fact talking about the article. It's likely that he has no idea about COI, so thanks for putting that note on his talk page! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you are so well known for your great work dealing with possible COI accounts, I think you should change your user name to KingCOI. Haha. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, shows you how confused I am... it's not even the same person; just the same name. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cindy Sheehan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cindy Sheehan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion involving you

Mike, please see this discussion on admin Yunshui's talk page. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:M-87 Orkan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:M-87 Orkan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello

We missed you at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Chicago 7. Please follow along at WT:CHICAGO to keep up with the issues of the project. We are currently in need of respondents at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chicago#Going_forward. Please come by and lend your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Hey Orange. IPs from the company are editing the page again against consensus. Given the controversy itself is about them barraging Reddit with anonymous accounts (and similar behavior shown repeatedly here), it seems like it should be semi-protected. I wasn't sure how it came to pass that it is no longer protected at all! CorporateM (Talk) 21:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "User talk:Fat%26Happy (Lundeen and Cartoon sections))". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  18:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Godhra train burning

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Godhra train burning. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at the edit history and the talk page of Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I hesitate to give you any reason why beyond general editors conflicts, because I am coming to you because you seem to be as uninvolved and active of an administrator as I can find. I would just like some thoughts on the current state of collaboration on the article and any thoughts on moving to consensus. Casprings (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

North American Union

Please stop sending me comments that I do not read. I will keep editing the North American Union article whether you like it or not. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a nneutral encyclopedia and accusations of "conspiracism" have absolutely no right to be in any kind of article. Ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman38 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ETF Securities

PR editor disclosed and used Request Edit, but the content they suggested included stuff like "believed to be the world’s most comprehensive range of exchange-traded commodities." They provided quality sources so I was going to just whip up a quick article, until I realized the sources appear to have been cherry-picked and became de-motivated.

After their disclosed, Talk page approach was ineffective, they have now been edit-warring with me as they attempt to insert blatantly promotional material with trademark symbols and the whole nine yards, both from an IP and from the PR username. I was curious if we could block them or protect the article yet? Or does it have to escalate further?

I find it frustrating that every time I try to "help" a PR person, I end up regretting it and that I have to spend my time fighting off spam and astroturf. CorporateM (Talk) 13:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, I fear there is something about the PR trade which deadens the critical faculties necessary to distinguish between legitimate writing and PR garbage (I've been known to use harsher terms than that). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is confusing to PRs as to whether they are required to cover the negative aspects to be a responsible contributor, because we have different expectations than other influencers and those expectations are not made clear in WP:COI.

It is true that many PRs (including myself not so long ago) have a hard time distinguishing between promotion and encyclopedic copy, but part of the difficulty in addressing the issue is that no statement can be said that accurately applies to every case, so they must be handled individually. CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your comment about a COI-thanks template. Don't you think it should be a barnstar? I bet it would only take a few minutes to whip it up. CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a big ol' meanie, but I don't want to award barnstars to COI editors, however well-behaved. To me, they are reserved for people who improve this project because they choose to do so, to make Misplaced Pages and kindred projects better places. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but Misplaced Pages is full of meanies, so you fit right in ;-)

I suppose a journalist would thank a PR person for doing their job well, but not necessarily award them. I'll whip up a quick Talk page template.

BTW, I'm still working on the other template for article talk pages CorporateM (Talk) 21:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How's this? I'm not sure how to add a parameter for the article in-question.

Template:COI-thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs)

Looks good; and of course, I am fond of the use of lauri in this kind of commendatory context. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A bit of a preemptive ban?

User PHI Comms came onto Misplaced Pages, disclosed who he is, and wants to update their not-for-profit medical research organization's Misplaced Pages page. So far they haven't made any edits. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to instruct them to refrain from editing their page(other than correcting dates/obvious facts) and to make suggestions to talk page instead of banning them?AioftheStorm (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A little bitey don't you think? If I were the PR person behind this username, I would walk away thinking Wikipedians just have a bone to pick against PRs and the best thing for me to do is operate on the down-low moving forward. Also, they stated that the page was outdated with old information, not that they wanted to use it for promotion. CorporateM (Talk) 00:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Another help desk issue for you - St. Johns County, Florida

Mike, a communications/PR person hired by St. Johns County, Florida, posted these comments at the help desk. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Preemptive block

Hey Orangemike

Wasn't this a teensy bit bitey? It looks like a new user was asking for guidance and was rewarded with having the door closed in their face. I know we don't allow shared accounts, but what harm is there in pointing the new editor down the right path? - MrX 02:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I do have to say I disagree with the block. The account is being used by one individual, hence I am a Communications Specialist writing on behalf of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners.. The user wants to share information, isn't that what we're here for? Blocks should be preventative, what are you preventing with this block? Dusti 02:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

He is preventing an admitted shared account from using the article solely as a promotional tool for their client or employer (I'm not certain which it is). And starting a report at AN/I before hearing one word from Mike is, frankly, outrageous. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you've looked that the accounts contribs - they were reaching out asking for help on what to do. They didn't actually begin editing. They actually updated the article with (from what I'm able to see) facts - followed by ref's. I don't see any promotional material. Dusti 03:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was fully aware of Ceilingtile's edit history. What I saw is that he began by editing the article of the county that employs (or contracts with) him, using a shared account, and then proceeded to spam the talk pages of seven editors with the same pasted text, before finally posting the same comments at the help desk. And contrary to your comment that you didn't "see any promotional material" in his June 11 edits, I suggest you re-review it. You will see unnecessary, promotional content, some which is either unsourced or poorly sourced. For example, he called the county the "central hub for tourism" and used the county's own website to source it; said they have the "highest rated public schools in the State of Florida" but didn't indicate when; said their schools "received a perfect score of "10" from the GreatSchools" (whatever that is) without showing a source; and added unencylopedic promotional text about various colleges with either no sourcing or the school's own website as a source. And there are other problems. So let's be realistic about this; the account is being used by those who are paid by St. Johns County to promote the county. Period. But my primary objection, as I said, is the perplexing fact that an editor took Mike to ANI before he had a chance to speak a single word on this matter. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just a comment from someone else on the helpdesk, I've notice you block a lot of users for posts on the helpdesk. I'm wondering if it may be best to try to work through it with them first, and in the process of doing so notify them of the UP violation, or other blockable offenses. Obvious vandals and trolls excluded, of course. Charmlet (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been raised here many times before and it's part of the reason I stalk Orange's Talk page, to triage the bleeding from his sometimes vicious blows. I don't expect a solution to be forthcoming, for starters because it's just unlikely the pattern will change and except in the most extreme cases we have no tools to "force" someone into consensus against their will.

Although this block was inappropriate in the most obvious way, I count myself among those that appreciates there being an admin that will swiftly block a COI editor that is being disruptive of my editing. And the aggressive blocking will always have enough supporters to prevent concrete action. So I suspect it will just continue, as it always has. Some editors will praise him for it and others will curse him. Many blocks will get overturned. And it will go on.

However, Orange, I have been relatively effective at persuading many COIs to leave it be of their own volition and this is more effective and a longer-term solution. Every editor you block, means more astroturfing for me to clean up tomorrow in my patrols for article mentioning "industry-leading" and "turnkey" and I think it has the opposite effect as what you intend. CorporateM (Talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on CorporateM's user page, I have little doubt that s/he is fully aware of the WP:NOPAY section of our COI guidelines and Ceilingtile's June 11 edits. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Someone had said the editor had not made an edit to the page, which is not true per the IP's link above. Also, the edit was clearly promotional. In that case, it seems like a defendable (albeit controversial) block. I apologize for my mis-statement as it appears I did not have the correct information. Although technically a warning with instructions may have been preferred, for my part if I were an editor with an interest in the article I would appreciate such blocks. Educating the PR person on what they did wrong and appropriate behavior is important, because it prevents the behavior from continuing in a more covert way in the future. CorporateM (Talk) 14:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

PR People

Hi Orangemike. I am a bit concerned that you blocked somebody for asking a good faith question at the help desk. As there was only one edit and one editor at the time, it would have been simple to inform the user that shared accounts are not allowed, due to copyright attribution reasons, and that each person needs to make their own account, and that if there's any evidence of more than one person using an account, it would be blocked. That explanation would have ended the problem, because the user was quite clearly an honest, cooperative person.

Second, PR people are allowed to edit here. They are allowed to identify themselves and make suggestions on article talk pages. When Misplaced Pages writes about a person, place or organization, there can be real life consequences for the subjects. As such, those subjects have every right to make their opinions heard here, because what we do affects them. They should refrain from making any potentially contentious edit on article pages, but they are welcome to participate on talk pages in a non-disruptive, helpful way.

Would you agree to handle things as I've suggested going forward? Best regards, Jehochman 13:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I respected your comments here... until I just saw the uncivil ones you posted in the help desk discussion 15 minutes earlier. Why the "obnoxious" description at the help desk, but not here? Why the rudeness at the help desk, but not here? Why even post at the help desk before talking to Mike? Whatever respect I had for you initially is out the window. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman, and to expand on my comments above (and what Jehochman seems to stop short of saying) - blocking shouldn't be the first thing you do after a rule violation when they are asking about the rules, or even if they aren't, asking about something else. We need to help them, not prohibit them from editing. Charmlet (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, calling this crap in the way you did was inappropriate. If it didn't qualify for CSD as promotion, then it's not crap clearly. Just because it's not a notable person does not make it crap, and telling new users they put crap up when it's not is very discouraging. Charmlet (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

To establish context: I did not tell the spammer that their post was "crap": I told them that a company employee should not be "pulling this kind of crap": i.e., writing two fulsome profiles of their bosses, and contributing nothing whatsoever else to this project. They were not here to contribute, they were here to pimp their company execs. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of context, the word crap should not be thrown around lightly. This person wanted an article on someone, they created it, they worried about why it was deleted and what they'd done wrong. The correct response would've been to guide them through Misplaced Pages policies (as I'm now doing), not to throw around crap and then not ever talk to them again. For all we know, these people could be notable and we just haven't found it yet, and the articles will be improved to great lengths after worked through with the creator. But that'll never happen if the word crap is thrown around and AfDs are started without even trying to communicate with the creator. Charmlet (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"the word crap should not be thrown around lightly"... LMFAO. Charmlet, I'm sure you're a nice person but you really need to grow a much thicker skin and move on. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey OM ... just to let you know, someone's actually had the balls to claim that I've been trying to smear you in some way. Apparently our unofficial tagteam on promotional usernames isn't well-noticed! Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Bwilkins of course didn't provide a proper diff, I will. He seems to enjoy presenting things out of context. First, I am the one who made the comment. In this thread on his talk page, I said, "Your apparent attempt to smear admin OrangeMike's reputation by bringing up past allegations against him, which have absolutely no relevance to the current matter, was highly improper." That was a reference to what Bwilkins said about you at ANI: "you should be well-aware that OM has been brought to AN/ANI numerous times for this same situation (go ahead, look it up)". He said that right after I was defending you against those, including Bwilkins, who thought it was perfectly acceptable for you to be taken to ANI without anyone even attempting to talk to you about it on your talk page first because of your alleged history of bad conduct. So Bwilkins' response was essentially that no one needed to talk to you first because of your supposedly notorious history. So yes, Bwilkins, making that comment was absolutely a smear on Mike's reputation IMO. This is why making out-of-context claims with no diffs to back them us usually won't work out well for you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And so your assumption was that I was attacking my colleague, rather than defending him? You assume that I thought OM was doing "bad things"?? My comment was quite clearly a statement that since OM has been "accused" of the same thing before, he knew exactly what his response would be, and what the subject was about. You took a rather bold, yet bizarre stretch to assume it was an attack. Since OM and I are often working serially when it comes to dealing with blocked promotional editors, OM knows quite well that there was never even a hint of an attack. I'm not sure how you could have parsed the English language in such a way, especially if you did 32 seconds of research - which is something I suggested that you do earlier, and I'll bet you still refuse to do it ... after all, that would entail you eating crow, and <insert deity> forbid that you admit you were wrong. You'd rather hide behind the anonymous ruse of defending someone (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I don't have to make assumptions. Your own words and the diff tell the entire story. Right out of your mouth: "you should be well-aware that OM has been brought to AN/ANI numerous times for this same situation (go ahead, look it up)" Obviously, you've been called out on insulting comment that only hurt Mike's cause and now you're trying to spin it to save your ass. That's why you have this ongoing habit and making claims and explanations without providing any diffs to back up what you're saying. Nice try. Fortunately, I there were several other admins helping me to defend Mike's reputation. Because you sure did nothing to help. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So, how in the English language does my statement insult or hurt Mike's cause? You're reading it quite in the reverse than the English language permits. I've been able to obtain a crow for you ... would you like rice with that? Some potato? Coleslaw? I really did try to gently prod you into re-reading the entire sequence of events, but yet you still choose to go based on your ridiculous assumptions. I did not want to say "stop behaving like Alexander - but your continual pointy refusal to AGF and re-read have made me think me and Mike (and now a few other admins) are simply being trolled - and I'm also highly considering that you're someone's sock, simply back to stir up non-existent shit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you're so desperate that you're resorting to the last-resort trolling tactic of making generic, baseless claims of socking. When an editor is backed into a corner, just call him a sock. Haha. You do understand that accusing someone of being a sock without reporting it can be considered harassment, right? If I had another account, I certainly would've used the other one to help Mike more in that ANI discussion because you and many of the others didn't do it. Which leads one to wonder why you even needed to bring up Mike's past? What did that have to with the fact that no one attempted to talk to him first before bringing him to ANI? I mean, that's what you were using as justification for bypassing direct discussion with Mike and making a beeline for ANI. That's the question you've ignored repeatedly from me and the other admins who disagree with you. And only a complete moron would call my participation in the ANI discussion an "anonymous ruse of defending someone". That outrageous characterization doesn't even make any sense. Instead of continuing your futile effort to justify bringing up the past allegations about Mike, why don't you just apologize instead, and move on. You really need to take a wikibreak because you've been pissing off a lot of editors lately. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So, you misread a statement (because you didn't know and still refuse to understand the backstory); you fabricate some kind of animosity between OM and myself; you jump in like Mr. White Knight (or is that Don Quixote?); you refuse to drop the stick. How this: let OrangeMike decide whether he believes I was attacking him - he's a big boy, and can handle himself just fine. If he comes to my talkpage when he's around and says "yeah, I felt you threw me under the bus", I'll apologize profusely ... I'm not going to say sorry for something I didn't do because someone who doesn't read English properly (and also clearly misunderstands the difference between an admin opinion and admin decreeing something) can't drop a stick and take a minute to read. Were you in my head? Do you know for sure I was trashing Mike? Or are you just making stuff up? (Note: it's quite obviously the latter). So - here's your challenge: don't post any more here until OrangeMike decides whether or not he saw my message as an attack (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. It's hilarious how you say let Mike decide for himself, yet you refuse to stop being so defensive about it. Doth protests too much. ;) No one forced you to come here and do this endless, nauseating spin of your own words. And of course you'd love to get the last word in. That's more than apparent. And once again, you misrepresented what I said (what a surprise), yet again with no diff to back it up. I didn't say it was an "attack"; I said your comment smeared his reputation. And, yes, I provided the diff above. You can't hide from your own words: "you should be well-aware that OM has been brought to AN/ANI numerous times for this same situation (go ahead, look it up)". Most of the edtiors in the discussion would have had no idea about that fact had you not injected it. Just apologize, admit you shouldn't have said it, and move on. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that Bbb23 has shed some light on the history of SPAs, socks and promotional editing on the article, it should be obvious the block was appropriate. And in fact, we should show some appreciation for Orange making disliked blocks that are in-fact needed. We need more editors willing to do things that will make them disliked, but are in the project's best interest.

I saw that my essay was positioned as something that needs some counter-balance from an anti-PR point-of-view, so that makes me wonder if Orange might have some comments on it. I've also been reworking it in general as I didn't realize anyone was using it. CorporateM (Talk) 13:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Volkmar Weiss‎ protection

Hi Mike,

I notice that you protected Volkmar Weiss‎ in 2010 due to a content dispute. I may be wrong, but this issue appears to be stale, would you consider unprotecting the page? Regards, Crazynas 18:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Stale COI

If an editor has stopped editing for over 2 years, and you uncover some editing that appears to be in conflict with our COI standards is it OK to just let it go until such time that some new edit oversteps? Should we be concerned that the account is there and has made edits that could be paid advocacy editing and COI for personally removing content that is accurate from their Article while adding information in regards to the company they work for? Kinda new territory for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If they have stopped editing, I'd probably drop a templated warning on their talk page, and maybe a {{connected contributor}} template on the article's talk page. I'd then revert any remaining COI edits if that COI content is still there; and add the article to my watchlist. I do wish we could watchlist the edits of suspicious accounts; but I believe it has been concluded that this would facilitate wikistalking behavior. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Going through the article it appears that the user is the major contributor with 129 edits which is 31.1% of the total edits to the article. I am going to be going through it and see exactly what was placed by the account and remove the information. As it is not a large article this may reduce it to a stub. I will then attempt to rebuild it if it gets to small on my own. Going on vacation so I will probably work on it next week.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Anti-Spam Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		For your unending battle against spammers! It is deeply appreciated. I am One of Many (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)