User talk:Orangemike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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.


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 Wikipedia database?[edit]

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[edit]

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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 (talkcontribs) 20:38, 23 December 2013

Judge Alonzo Conant jpg deletion by Ronhjones[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Some words on "ESNA European Higher Education News"[edit]

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![edit]

{{WPW Referral}}

Luv Ya page[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

(Request Article) Draft:Restaurant City[edit]

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)

WTFRgojoey (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Does anybody here read drafts and discussion posts ("talk")? No. This is why "editors" keep responding with unrelated crap such as "... your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages ..."

Peer review newsletter #1[edit]


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!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing[edit]

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.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review[edit]

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.

Update #3: advertising[edit]

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)

Please comment on Talk:Machiavellianism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Machiavellianism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Desmond Napoles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Desmond Napoles. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Compensation is not my concern[edit]

Dear Orange Mike,

I'm not looking to be compensated for my contribution. I just want to updated show information. Still waiting for the response from Wikipedia management......

Sincerely, Belinda Belin27 (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

1. There is no "Wikipedia management"; just unpaid volunteer admins like myself.
2. The compensation in question is that you receive from your clients, not from us. You still are required to disclose that before editing further. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Greetings. I have a complaint about an experienced editor whose actions in a particular area has been very concerning and in my opinion, disruptive. How should I address it to you? (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Such matters should be raised at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
ANI is very toxic and highly prejudiced. I doubt anyone there would take my complaint seriously and not condescendingly because IPs are like a minority in this community, they don't get the fair treatment they deserve although the five pillars state everyone should be treated equally. Is there an individual administrator you know who'd be willing to review my complaint and take action if needed? (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).


Administrator changes

added BradvChetsfordIzno
readded FloquenbeamLectonar
removed DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

CheckUser changes

removed CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese history[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Timelines of Chinese history. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Century[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)