Misplaced Pages

User talk:Orangemike: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:02, 10 March 2017 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by Neuroelectronic - ""← Previous edit Revision as of 00:16, 11 March 2017 edit undoEndercase (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,855 edits Hope I didn't upset you: Request for inputNext edit →
Line 162: Line 162:
:::Anarchism works when the participants follow a set of mutually-accepted rules. I feel that you overstepped those boundaries for no useful purpose. --] | ] 07:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC) :::Anarchism works when the participants follow a set of mutually-accepted rules. I feel that you overstepped those boundaries for no useful purpose. --] | ] 07:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
::::Alright, so particulars. Have you read the discussions that led to those posts? In this case, a number of users are enforcing a sitewide ban of multiple sources (they do not even have a publicly available list) that was not made following protocol (see discussions). ] does indicate that in order to prevent ] one is "allowed" and "encouraged" to post in relevant locations with neutral wording to inform other affected users. Additionally, this was not even a case of Canvassing following ] when Consensus can not be reached in on a particular forum it is the "duty" of invested parties to escalate the discussion to a "higher" related forum. Whereas NPOV is a pillar and ] is not, this <b>notified</b> move was well within policy, even if it was not traditional{citation needed}. At best their bans fall under ] but as it is site-wide instead of "in a particular area" it does not even qualify, as such their actions represent a large change in policy, discussion must be made about banning in general as they ] and avoided it. As of now, we have a number of users running around removing all sorts of cited information because it came from sources they don't like. If you would like me to provide you with a list of usernames I could easily do so. But it would not be difficult for you to find them yourself. Find an accurate article (the hard part) from Brietbart, Infowars, or the Daily mail (or a few other sources) and cite it, in short order you will have caught at least 1 editor, that is removing sources and sometimes even information that they could have at least left a citation needed tag on, citing a "ban" that refuses to take context into consideration or even talk about their actions (very bot like). ] (]) 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC) ::::Alright, so particulars. Have you read the discussions that led to those posts? In this case, a number of users are enforcing a sitewide ban of multiple sources (they do not even have a publicly available list) that was not made following protocol (see discussions). ] does indicate that in order to prevent ] one is "allowed" and "encouraged" to post in relevant locations with neutral wording to inform other affected users. Additionally, this was not even a case of Canvassing following ] when Consensus can not be reached in on a particular forum it is the "duty" of invested parties to escalate the discussion to a "higher" related forum. Whereas NPOV is a pillar and ] is not, this <b>notified</b> move was well within policy, even if it was not traditional{citation needed}. At best their bans fall under ] but as it is site-wide instead of "in a particular area" it does not even qualify, as such their actions represent a large change in policy, discussion must be made about banning in general as they ] and avoided it. As of now, we have a number of users running around removing all sorts of cited information because it came from sources they don't like. If you would like me to provide you with a list of usernames I could easily do so. But it would not be difficult for you to find them yourself. Find an accurate article (the hard part) from Brietbart, Infowars, or the Daily mail (or a few other sources) and cite it, in short order you will have caught at least 1 editor, that is removing sources and sometimes even information that they could have at least left a citation needed tag on, citing a "ban" that refuses to take context into consideration or even talk about their actions (very bot like). ] (]) 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have upset a number of users with my actions. I stand accused of being ] on ]. I'm really sure what to do about it. If I actually am in violation I think the process should play out. However, the only users who seem to think I'm in violation so far are also the ones that have been the most offended by audacity and arguments. As you are a user whom I have interacted with, your input on either side of the issue would be helpful. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


== Hello == == Hello ==

Revision as of 00:16, 11 March 2017

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

This is Orangemike's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Auto-archiving period: 16 days 

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


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


Speedy deletion of File:1930s photo of the foreshore above Jeffrey Street 001 001004.jpg

hello Orangemike

Apologies if I missed earlier warnings, or if the file was incorrectly tagged however can I check please your speedy deletion of this photograph. The photograph was important to the article. The reference citation in the article on Jeffrey Street was as follows and my recollection is that a similar citation was present on the photo page:

"View to St. Aloysius' College above foreshores of Kirribilli" (photo). 1 copyprint; b&w; 204 x 254 mm, This photograph shows construction on foreshores of Kirribilli above Jeffrey Street. Above the foreshores is St. Aloysius; College incorprating Dr. Cox's home. Whilst barely visible above the trees is the tower of Star of the Sea Church. The homes Greencliffe and Craiglea are also visible on the right hand side above M. Steel boatshed. Jeffrey Street Wharf and Jeffrey Street: North Sydney Council, original publisher unknown. 1930s. Retrieved 27 June 2010. Image 001\001004

The file appears on the Local Government website and the source attributes the photo to "c 1930s". I thought (mistakenly) that all of the correct tags has been used both in the article and also on the photo page. I refer also to the Australian Copyright Council which states that in Australia Copyright has expired in photos taken prior to 1 January 1955. This photograph is therefore approximately 20 years out of copyright. Refer to the copyright regulation here.

<http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/browse-by-what-you-do/photographers/>

Can I seek your advice please as to how to reverse this or what additional "public domain" style tag you feel was missing which should have been present on this photo to cover any other countries copyright laws etc? This photo has been on this article for almost four (4) years and this is the first time that the PD status / copyright of these very old photos has been raised as an issue.

Is my deleted article stored in the Misplaced Pages database?

I was told my article about Claudia Caporal was deleted because it was biased and I was too "close" to her to be able to write her article. Is there a way to rescue the writing I did for it so that I may then edit it to an appropriate stage for publishing? Thank you. KatieLee92 (talk)

Periodic general health checks and the Medcan Clinic

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Medcan Clinic § Discussion, part 2.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmccloud (talkcontribs) 20:38, 23 December 2013

Judge Alonzo Conant jpg deletion by Ronhjones

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

Second consideration appreciated on Talk:Gregor Collins

Hi, Orange Mike, or other user - this is a request for a second look ie a consideration in deleting the "Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable" note that has been on the Gregor Collins article since September of 2013. Reliable sources and additional, validated wiki links (including the recently approved article Goodbye Promise) have been provided in the interim, proving it a worthy candidate for no flags. I have no reason to be untruthful that this article is indeed associated with me but that is in no way an indication it is a puff piece or autobiographical piece, nor should it not be considered just as neutral as any other entry. If for some reason it's still considered flag-worthy I'd appreciate an updated explanation and what needs to be secured to have it fully approved. Thanks for your time. Gregorcollins (talk)

==

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

==

Some words on "ESNA European Higher Education News"

I removed the issues from the top of the page. After spending a few weeks gradually editing this article, I believe the tone is much more neutral, many references and links have been added to integrate it, and it relies much less on primary sources. If there is anything left to be improved, please let me know. Thanks.Template:Subset:unsigned

You're Invited!

{{WPW Referral}}

Luv Ya page

Hello Orangemike I appreciate your advice, but just to clarify, Paloma Faith is not a minor performer. Despite not being regarded as a phenomenon like Amy Winehouse or Adele she is more popular than some may realise, and even so more financially successful than some realise. I believe if my article is up to the standard of Misplaced Pages, my article will be accepted. Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandidLibraryEditors (talkcontribs)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of France

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of France. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Operation Léa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Léa. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ty Law

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ty Law. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Winter War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winter War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Misplaced Pages have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Misplaced Pages soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Sock/meat puppet? --NeilN 00:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking these may be two different fans of Geller's, if she's complained in a recent blog, tweet, podcast or cuneiform-tablet-sent-to-subscribers about the information. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I had a quick looksee through her tweets and Facebook posts. Some of your fellow Americans are pretty cray-cray. --NeilN 00:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Worse than that: many of our fellow humans are cray-cray, my droogy. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The more disruption occurs, the more I think it's someone wanting to hide the daughters' connection with the mother, rather than Geller herself. --NeilN 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps. Geller has been the object of assassination attempts. Someone may want to protect her children ... or not! Are there Misplaced Pages rules on this matter? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that we only publish what is already published, that makes no sense. And re: the "assassination attempts"? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI Curtis Culwell Center attack and Pamela_Geller#June_2015_assassination_plot. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Culwell Center thing qualifies as an attempt on her, but the Boston whacko clearly was after Geller, however ineptly. Thanks for the info. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
If somebody legitimately thinks anything here endangers another person, we have mechanisms to raise that concern; but nobody has done so in this matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


Underwood International College

Dear Orangemike,

Last year you successfully stopped vandalism in the article Underwood International College, Yonsei University. However, the vandalism started again in 5-6 March 2017. 5 March modifications seem to be made by a COI user and 6 March modifications were geolocated to Yonsei University. These modifications aimed to remove secondary source information which criticizes the college. Could you please check the modifications and protect the page if you consider it necessary? Thank you!

Kailliak (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hope I didn't upset you

Feel free to talk to me here or at my page. Your removal was out of order as I explained, ironically in the comment you removed. I suspect you were not aware of context. Endercase (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No upset; but you need to pick the most appropriate place, and discuss it there. Your comment, in addition to being a violation of the closing instructions, made no sense whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, bit confused are you an authoritarian anarchist? The red and black plus the tax the rich. Anyway, why should I obey their instructions? Are you familiar with those particular users? I am. Endercase (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Anarchism works when the participants follow a set of mutually-accepted rules. I feel that you overstepped those boundaries for no useful purpose. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, so particulars. Have you read the discussions that led to those posts? In this case, a number of users are enforcing a sitewide ban of multiple sources (they do not even have a publicly available list) that was not made following protocol (see discussions). WP:CAN does indicate that in order to prevent wp:Localconsensus one is "allowed" and "encouraged" to post in relevant locations with neutral wording to inform other affected users. Additionally, this was not even a case of Canvassing following WP:DISPUTE when Consensus can not be reached in on a particular forum it is the "duty" of invested parties to escalate the discussion to a "higher" related forum. Whereas NPOV is a pillar and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard is not, this notified move was well within policy, even if it was not traditional{citation needed}. At best their bans fall under Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#Community_sanctions but as it is site-wide instead of "in a particular area" it does not even qualify, as such their actions represent a large change in policy, discussion must be made about banning in general as they wp:bold and avoided it. As of now, we have a number of users running around removing all sorts of cited information because it came from sources they don't like. If you would like me to provide you with a list of usernames I could easily do so. But it would not be difficult for you to find them yourself. Find an accurate article (the hard part) from Brietbart, Infowars, or the Daily mail (or a few other sources) and cite it, in short order you will have caught at least 1 editor, that is removing sources and sometimes even information that they could have at least left a citation needed tag on, citing a "ban" that refuses to take context into consideration or even talk about their actions (very bot like). Endercase (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have upset a number of users with my actions. I stand accused of being WP:NOTHERE on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm really sure what to do about it. If I actually am in violation I think the process should play out. However, the only users who seem to think I'm in violation so far are also the ones that have been the most offended by audacity and arguments. As you are a user whom I have interacted with, your input on either side of the issue would be helpful. Thank you for your time. Endercase (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I appreciate the block you placed, I really just wanted to help that young man understand why he shouldn't have moved that page and it suddenly turned into a Wrestling promo. Hopefully this time out shows him the error of his ways. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 07:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Operation Storm

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Storm. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. This concerns Vjmlhds (talk · contribs) and solicits community resolution..Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taiwan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:neuroelectronic

Thanks for calling my edit on the Matrix wiki a "conflict of interest", you crazy conspiracy theorist! Haha, I needed a good laugh. However, when you claimed that I did not source my changes to the article, you exposed that your brain isn't working in correct order, again. It's easily verifiable that I did post a source for my changes. Perhaps you should focus less on editing public repositories of information and more on staying healthy and sober. Just my concerned thoughts, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroelectronic (talkcontribs) 19:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)