Orpheus

I apologize that the first link I provided to the Commons guideline didn't work (my mistake). Followed up with a link that functions. I'm not trying to slip in any changes by the back door; this is routine practice on Commons where I'm an administrator and it's surprising to see it raise controversy here. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do miss them from time to time. Thanks for picking me up. I don't know if they would blacklist it since I don't know how persistent they have been. If you can give me the diffs, I can post it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. They may not blacklist it right away, but that is usually enough to get someone else watching it so that once they strike again, it can be blocked. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 03:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I saw the situation going on over at Geoff_Simpson, and I have to say I am a bit concerned with how its going. It really looks like its already surpassed an edit war. The user in question has been blocked and warned for this before so I'm trying to figure out a good way to get this to stop. He's been around awhile but I guess he may need some sort of reminder or a third opinion or something. Do you have any ideas? --Banime (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see he has been blocked. Anyway, good job remaining civil!--Banime (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I think your short look at the E1b1b article helped. It is an editing situation which has shown itself to get better quickly whenever other serious editors hang around a while. Will you come back and look every now and then or have we frightened you off? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

...was your comment in any way related to this show? :P --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 13:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Either way i lol'd. So well done! --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Noonan admits he is openly gay in the documentary "A Very British Gangster" that aired on BBC. It is not a fictionalized biopic. Udar55 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem and thanks for the quick reply. I have seen the documentary and can confirm that Noonan being gay is fact. In addition, here is an interview with the director where he discusses this briefly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/3669787/Donal-MacIntyre-%27The-difficult-thing-is-to-leave-with-clean-hands%27.html

Therefore you have an independent source outside of me to confirm this. Udar55 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please keep things civil at AfD discussions. Because deleting articles is a contentious issue, it's important to hold ourselves to even higher standards than normal during discussions on the topic. This comment is pushing the boundaries of that a bit. It also adds nothing to the discussion, being a weak restatement of WP:NOEFFORT. Take this as a helpful hint, not criticism. Orpheus (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

i question the applicability of WP:NOEFFORT since i wasn't nor did i ever actually cast a vote. i was simply trying to illustrate in a round about way, without advancing a position (since i never took a position), that the editor ought to be WP:BOLD. never-the-less, i will try to be more diplomatic in the future - thank you for your comments Misterdiscreet (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think you will be glad about the news: the 'controversial' image on Bachelorette party has been restored from a commons' file, even if an administrator is challenging it. If interested, you can contributed to the ongoing discussion. Thank you.--Fakundus (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You recently removed the {{Prod}} notice from Porn creep. That notice says (my emphasis):

You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.

Yet your edit summary was just "deprod". Please explain your reasoning, on the article's talk page, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Has been discussed at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty. DBD 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Thank you for joining the discussion. In your opinion, are margraves nobility or royalty? Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Depends - it needs to be decided on a case by case basis. If they have any executive role, they're royalty. Otherwise, they'd be nobility. Orpheus (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I didn't realize someone had reverted me there. (was moving it from Homophobia to LGBT rights opposition which was more accurate, but then found that LGBT rights opposition had been deleted per a CFD earlier, and thought I had reverted my category actions.) thanks for the note. Outsider80^(talk) 05:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Might I add that he started it? Read the comments on my talk page and you'll see, if not check HIS history. Iw as being nice and giving tips to him. All of a sudden he attacks me and calls me a vandal. It was in my defence that I retaliate back. You'll also notice he hasn't deleted the message I left on his talkpage thus making me look bad. If anything you just don't get the gist of what he is trying to do. He reverts my edits from the page without explanation. So in other words he is an asshole and you'r praise earns little weight on Wikipedia. I have a right to defend myself. And my comments are not uncivil merely strong criticism. He's an asshole because he acts like a retard. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message Orpheus. If you can, keep an eye out on List of United States inventions and discoveries because there area lot of idiots who delete and screw up the page. I'm trying to get the whole page cited and accurate but it is going to take a lot of time since I don;t have any help doing it. And nevermind LOTRrules.... he's just the same old Euro Trash. I busted his ass a few days ago and reported him. And now that cry baby is pouting. Stay cool and talk to you soon! --Yoganate79 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Orpheus, thanks for leaving the amusing comment about being a howeveraholic. I visited your user page and have been led to some interesting web sites I hadn't heard of, namely Wikitruth and Conservapedia. As a seven-month resident of England during my mid-twenties and a lifelong Anglophile, I would like to claim I'm a speaker/writer of British English, but my spellings are American so that technically disqualifies me. Cheers! --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Dude, you're freakin' hilarious (and so much for my claims of being a British English speaker). I laughed for a full minute. You definitely earned this barnstar. Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 11:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congrats, Orpheus. I love Good Humor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree - Alodia Gosiengfiao would indeed be a good candidate for deletion. that said, i've been a little put off by the afd process as of late (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 23#Habari) and it may be a while before i'm willing to put up with it enough to do an afd again Misterdiscreet (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Glad to have helped :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was luck of the draw. I just happened to catch it on the Recent changes page. Glad to be able to help. Cheers! Monkey Bounce (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I went through and rolled back all of the edits he made reverting you that you haven't already gotten to.Monkey Bounce (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

See the new report on User:81.132.184.14 for more sockpuppetry. Monkey Bounce (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have added the word "also" to the discussion at Category_talk:Homophobia#Category_Rewrite. You are invited to explain your comment. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I applogize if missunderstood the "coffee and Benzedrine." But you must still discuss-- or try to! Do not just edit war. Do not blindly revert. --Carlaude ^talk 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I like your edits on this page, keep up the good work! There is so much nonsense on that article. I stripped out large, un-noteworthy, and unclear portions of the article only to have it all jammed back into the article by Jagged 85. Its good to have people trying to keep the article clear, relevant, helpful, and conforming to WP:OC over WP:PRESERVE for the purposes of a list/timeline. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Orpheus! I reverted your recent change to this article, as you (hopefully inadvertantly) omitted the cited print references that I added, then claimed that the changes I made were unsourced. Please carefully check the passages you choose to revert for proper citations before removing it (and claiming it as unsourced). Thank you! :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Orpheus. You have new messages at Tommy2010's talk page.
Message added 11:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

 – Tommy2010 11:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah... please read my whole piece. Sorry if I took a lot of space.

Yes, I know they are, and yes I know its not particularly notable. However, I have had this particular debate about various other entries on that list. There are a number of double standards. There was one instance where an Indonesian editor requested half the list of secessionist movements within Indonesia be deleted, as she hadn't heard of them. She met massive opposition from many users (myself included) who cited the media censorship by the gov't, the general lack of publicity, and so on (I simply piped in to note that most Americans do not know of the de facto state the Lakotah Sioux have, a prime example that notability does not equal existence). However, when the country in question is a major country, it seems to be different. Later on, I debated with other users (mainly Chinese) over the inclusion of the movement to revive the state of Manchukuo, which had itself a website (as compared to the set of random Indonesian islands, some of which I knew of, but most of which lacked a single link). This had not only a website, but also a written proposed constitution, a clearly articulated ideology, a flag, and offices. While its actual chances of success were, as we all know, close to 0%, in my opinion that didn't make it non-includable (I don't really take half that list seriously- "Cascadia", what the hell, really? And Mercia?). However, many people seemed to think it was a hoax. I may state now that I still don't think that makes a valid argument- why, if it was a hoax, would the owners of the site spend so much time updating it, writing a constitution, having a chat room (separately), finding affiliates for the site, writing well over 20 ideological documents, having offices, and so on? For me, it is easy to see how many Manchu (and, yes, Han too, especially considering the fuzzyness of the Han-Manchu ethnic boundary) living in the region would be disillusioned with the Chinese government and seek away out of a country they had no loyalty to (there are people like this in all countries, and Manchukuo existed less than 70 years ago, despite being technically a puppet). That there is no media coverage is to be expected as well- there is not only no media coverage of the aspirations of the indigenous inhabitants of Inner Mongolia (unity with their brethren in their national state of Mongolia) but even the Lakota Sioux's de facto state, for some reason, which exists as a fact, gets no coverage. In the case of Manchukuo, perhaps the Manchu's loss of ethnic dominance within their homeland renders the movement worthless in a logical sense (although Manchukuo, as one user pointed out, was never an ethnic state). However, even though the web now is increasingly becoming the main vehicle for political dissent, it is still not taken seriously. Yet, random islands in Indonesia deserve inclusion even though no one can produce an iota pointing to their existence, and oddly enough, at least one of the people intent on the deletion of Manchukuo, a well-known historical state with at least one website hosting a (pointless) revivalist movement, put up a spirited defense of the inclusion of unheard-of islands with no citations whatsoever.

Hence, in our case, this is more than Manchukuo was (even if this is even more ridiculous). They also seem to have a constitution, plenty of writing, a flag, some sort of "principles of migration" thing, an active blog, a forum, offline events, some sort of "Butler Plan", and so on... They even have plenty of interview, and operate s. I believe they are quite serious, and I believe, indeed, they (and others like them) are a considerable threat to the US. It's not that they would actually accomplish their goal, rather its the fact that there are so many individuals who would dedicate their lives to such a thing that is disturbing. For quite awhile, people in the US have been making the mistake of not taking hate groups on the right seriously, and they have become increasingly radical (just see Hutaree). This is yet another example. So yes, I believe if they have a radio station, they are notable. Sorry for the lecture. --Yalens (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. 7  05:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Orpheus. I'm just wondering why you didn't consider Rocketboom to be an authoritative source for something as obscure as this Internet meme. It seems to me that they did a great and in-depth coverage of it. Cheers Tntdj (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category:Homophobic violence, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! I am sorry I got that revision wrong. Please forgive me! Feel free to delete those templates! Once again, sorry!--Quantum Particles (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that you have keen map making skills. We're attempting to update the Neutral country page map to fit the political scene of 2017. I was wondering if you and your wonderful cartographic collage making skills might be able to give us a small hand over there in the days ahead?

Thanks kindly,

Scott P. (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Infobox royalty has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox pretender. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Per is a perfectly good English word, not "Wiki slang". See its wiktionary entry (etymology 1, preposition meaning 4). (The Grammar Police never rest.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

What I replaced it with is far clearer. Per shows up so much in Wikipedia back office pages it's clearly ingrained in the culture. It shouldn't leak through where it's not appropriate. Orpheus (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply