User talk:Orangemike

Scam Watch Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting "Articles for Creation" participants. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed, please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.

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.

Archives

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

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

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.

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesfearnley (talk • contribs)

{{WPW Referral}}

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 Wikipedia, my article will be accepted. Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandidLibraryEditors (talk • contribs)

Hi @Orangemike: I made a draft article Draft:Restaurant City, can you take a look, Thanks in advance. Mayamaya7 Poke! 09:13 AM, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrangeMike, can you send me the deleted material? ACcreator (talk)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is User:Luiysia again. At the last meetup, people expressed interest in having a Wikipedia meetup bi-monthly (that is, every other month). So, here's our December meetup!

The meetup will start at The Bourgeois Pig, in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, at 11 AM.

Here is the official meetup page, where you can add yourself as an attendee. See you soon!

(If you would prefer not to see messages for Chicago meetups, go ahead and take yourself off this list.)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a user by the IP address 157.15.11.13 is constantly making incorrect changes to the page "Classical Languages of India". The user twice put the attestation date of the Sanskrit language as '5000 CE' whereas we are still in 2024 CE. Sanskrit being an ancient language has roots that go way back. This user has some personal agenda and has constantly made other incorrect edits with this '5000 CE' one being the latest. Can you please guide on what could be done to stop the user Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]