User talk:Orange Suede Sofa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page! If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, so you may want to watch this page. I check my watchlist regularly, and I almost always keep talk pages on my watchlist if I comment on them. Thank you!



I've been welcomed!


Hello, Orange Suede Sofa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Oregon Country. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: anon editor[edit]

With (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) if you're familiar with the subject you may want to check his other contributions. Looks like Fernando Gago was not the only bio he changed the height on.. -- œ 07:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed those other edits as well, but I can't speak to their veracity. In the case of Fernando Gago it was the removal of properly referenced info that caught my eye. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elliot Turner[edit]

I've recently made a bio for the above shrewsbury town playet... if possible can you please create an info box, with games played etc. as I'm having trouble, many many thanks Salopian123 (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accidental reversion[edit]

On HTML5 you flagged me for vandalism. It was Azuris change that was vandalism. We both reverted his vandalism at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, the diff seems to show otherwise. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have a look at the history. You'll see the original vandal was someone else, whom I've just warned for a subsequent similar behaviour elsewhere. It looks like was merely confused which version it was that xhe was reverting. This sometimes happens as an effect of cache behaviour, which can present an editor with an old version. It happened to me recently. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With more than 24 hours in between Azuris and the IP's isn't a caching issue.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Exceptional Newcomer Award
Anti-vandalism efforts --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 04:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


... with One Size Fits All by any chance? DVdm (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha, no, although that should have occurred to me... I actually own an orange suede sofa. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing beats a suede sofa. Enjoy it :-) DVdm (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flag granted[edit]

You are now a rollbacker. Please remember to only roll back edits that are made in bad faith. Keep up the good work. WilliamH (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewer granted[edit]

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random complaints from vandals[edit]

what is your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) Nov 13, 2010

Speaking of vandals, thanks. Geoff B (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV aside, does Wikipedia actually confirm the existence of this disorder? Just curious.

Also, how would I petition to join and begin to produce/edit articles? Would I even wish to begin? I've heard from more than one source on the internet that Wikipedia staff treat this insular community as something of a cult, and despite being an excellent grammarian (if TERRIBLE NPOV'er), I'd rather slice my own genitalia than to get involved in a clash of personalities more dubious than the Church of Scientology. Seriously, I actually would much rather do the former than the latter. Sincerely. (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Potassium Permanganate, sporadic editorReply[reply]

what the fuck man???? i don't know what to say to you. get a wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) Feb 04, 2011

You discovered that very fast. Do you commonly watch over English-language pages related to Finns on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) Mar 08, 2011

Hey,Why did you delete my post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:57, 29 April 2011

Sir, you are an ignorant vandal. (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC) You cannot issue an Xth warning for vandalism without a 1st. Each revert is coming with a different reason. I suspect your sole reason for being here is to prevent new information being added that may be useful to people. You are a sad little man and I pity you. Good day, sir. (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Love, Jockstrap69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jockstrap69 (talkcontribs) 01:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your an idiot.[edit]

Whats happened to the freedom of speech? In wikipedia we should be able to post what we like, without some stupid little clubot stalking us all day. I demand that you stop sending me messages about how I "vandalize" your pages. No go get a social life you nerd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question left on user page[edit]

May you please tell me what was wrong with my latest edit? It's true. There is no justice, compensation, or even an apology for the events of 1984. To say that that is vandalism is huge disrespect to tens of thousands of sufferers.

Your comments were contrary to the neutral point of view principle, and this edit and this edit indicate that you were not editing in good faith. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kim Jong Un[edit]

Thanks for policing this article. Looks like the vandalizing IP, which you reverted w/ Huggle, was a reincarnation of User:ABERMON, who was blocked after an AIV report of adding in that same "" website nonsense. Thanks again. Saebvn (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm reporting to AIV. FYI. Saebvn (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, it's been  Blocked for one week. Regards. Saebvn (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm buying[edit]

For your hard work on wiki and also for protecting userpages like mine. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Bottoms up! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A yard of ale for you

Invitation to join[edit]

Hi Orange Suede Sofa,

I notice that you've been doing some great work regarding CHERUB and Henderson's Boys. Please consider joining the CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of CHERUB and Henderson's Boys. If you would like to participate please pop over to the project page where you can join the project and see an open list of tasks that you can help with. Thank you for your time.

Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I actually don't know anything the topic but I'll continue fixing clear vandalism when I see it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You've been beating me to reversions all night on Huggle. Keep it up! GorillaWarfare talk 05:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controversial changes to Slavic name pages[edit]

Thanks for your message. I would help but I'm too busy today. My advice is just to hunt them all down and revert them. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shared IP address[edit]

Some computers share the same IP address. I know, because I'm an admin at one of the wikis at Wikia. I never even edit here, anyway. Whoever used this IP last musta been pritty bad. Sorry for this, anyway, even though I have no idea on what you are talking about. (talk), aka, UxieLover1994 of Wikia, 13:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, this happens sometimes with shared IP addresses. I've placed a note on that talk page to document the shared IP, and you may want to consider creating an account to ensure that you don't get spurious warnings. Thanks, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have deleted this as out of scope for two reasons:

  • Firstly the RFC is about the block of Sophie not her actions
  • The block was made on behalf of the arbitration committee that involved access to private data that ordinary admins do not have access to. Consequently the community or ordinary admins cannot review the action and the foundation's privacy policy prevents the arbitration committee from explaining.

The correct avenues of appeal are a) directly to the arbitration committee via email, b) to Jimbo or c) appealing to the Ombudsman Committee. Before you do any of these things I suggest you consider the gravity of the actions taken by the committee and whether the committee would have done this lightly. Spartaz Humbug! 14:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. It looks like someone else went ahead and took it to Jimbo, and it appears that the matter is as closed as it is going to get. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice Work[edit]

You keep on beating me to vandalism:P Nice work (although it's a bit frustrating).--Piast93 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read[edit]

I wished to send you a message on wikipedia, is this the right way to do so? You recently deleted some of my edits, which is okay, as they were false, I then went onto the discussion page of Santa Claws to state my reasons for such edits (allough I never mentioned I had tried to edit that page) Wikipedia told me that the discussion post I made might be deleted, but I want to discuss censoring the page for children, what can I do? I know that this topic has been looked into already, but I beleive a discussion addressing both sides needs to occur. I am new to wikipedia so I dont know what I am doing. There are counter agruments to censoring the page, but so far I don't believe there are enough to weigh up agaist the arguments for censoring. If we could talk more about this I believe wikipedia users would be more satisfied and wikipedia could function in the most beneficial way possibleTheFutureGood (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)TheFutureGoodReply[reply]

Thanks for your note, and placing a message on a user's talk page is indeed the right way to contact someone. I read your discussion at Talk:Santa Claus, and while your heart is in the right place, it is the policy of the Wikipedia community that Wikipedia is not censored. If you'd like to learn more about how Wikipedia works, then I've placed a welcome message on your talk page that will get you started. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help :) I posted the below on another editors page, please I dont understand what is right and wrong to put on wikipedia anymore. I am getting warnings all the time, and I dont want to cause trouble, but I want to help improve wikipedia what can I do?? TheFutureGood (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edits are getting reverted for a variety of reasons. For example, this edit introduced factual errors, and this edit introduced a non-neutral point of view. You may want to check the links I've provided on your talk page for more information. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But check out my last edit please about Mr Claws and St Nick, I believe I was falsely warned and my edit removed, it was a perfectly acceptable, constructive edit! Thanks :)TheFutureGood (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll have to take that up with the editor who reverted your change (and I see that you've already left a message on his talk page). My guess is that since your first edits to the article were factually incorrect, you didn't really establish good faith and therefore the rest of your edits became suspicious. I agree that St. Nick is a reasonable name to add, but I've never heard of Mr. Claws before... it may be a regional name. Do you have a reliable source that documents that? If so, I would recommend re-adding the info to the article, this time making sure that you cite your source and use a good edit summary. Other editors may still have objections but at that point you would have done everything right and you can discuss your change on the talk page. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've blocked the IP now, silly kid. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think you meant MOS:ISLAM which in any case is more explicit. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the one, thanks. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your tireless reverting of my talk, have a beer[edit]

And thank you for your work on Huggle, which made those reversions possible! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar! :) David (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crescent Tours article[edit]

I posted an article on Crescent Tours. I do not really understand what is your problem with it. How different it is for example from Balkan Holidays article. I am just trying to do the same article as Balkan Holidays — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheArticleEditor (talkcontribs) 01:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crescent Tours doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. The article also reads like an advertisement, and Wikipedia is not an ad platform. Thanks for pointing out the Balkan Holidays article, as that is also a good candidate for deletion for the same reason. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should remind that Crescent Tours is a pioneering company in the new tourism sector called Halal Holidays, and thus carries general knowledge importance and thus needs to be included in Wikipedia. The references like The Guardian are very reliable sourcesTheArticleEditor (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for making changes to the article. I am ok with the changes. If I make a change I will clearly explain the reason in the title box. PLease, advise if we can remove the "Deletion" message at the top of the article? TheArticleEditor (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't made any changes to the article besides tagging it-- you may be confusing me with another editor. The "deletion" tag may not be removed until the deletion discussion (which you are welcome to participate in) has closed. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check the Talk page history. This guy keeps making the same blanking vandalism and keeps blanking their Talk page, where they have already gotten a final warning. Corvus cornixtalk 04:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


That wasn't vandalism, it is factual. Does E! Online count as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, although I doubt that a description of the subject's nipples as "perky" would be considered encyclopedic, regardless of the quality of the source. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Quarless[edit]

I don't know what source I can give you but Anrew Quarrless was expelled from Holy Trinity High School for dealing dugs. I go there and it is extremly common knoweldge all teachers who were there at the time have vouched for it as have students who went there at the time of his expulsion —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. For biographies of living persons, Wikipedia has a high standard of providing information from verifiable, reliable sources. "Common knowledge" isn't enough. If you can find a reliable, published source that states this, then you may feel free to add it to the article along with a reference to the source. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for defending my userpage from that vandal. I have to wonder what set that in motion, considering how inactive I've been as of late! Huntster (t @ c) 05:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User: is adding false information on Goldfish (snack) (I did change it though), I don't know how to block him or what a tag filter is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegGriffin55 (talkcontribs) 22:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did the right thing, but only admins can block users. To get an overview of your options when dealing with vandals, you should start with this guide. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegGriffin55 (talkcontribs) 02:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks. I have responded on the transcluded RD page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: Evelyn Taft article[edit]

Thank you for your message regarding my article on Evelyn Taft, the meteorologist here at KCAL-TV in Los Angeles. Here in Los Angeles, she is actually a very well-known anchorwoman with quite the following, with her picture on billboards and other print ads. I don't believe it is unusual for local anchors of TV stations to have their own page, and others at KCAL-TV do as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsapw (talkcontribs) 17:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may want to read the "other stuff exists" essay, which explains why noting that other people have pages isn't widely accepted as a compelling argument in deletion discussions. I also understand that she may be well known in LA, but that (by itself) doesn't meet the general notability guideline, which lists the criteria for inclusion. I think your best path is to find additional sources for the article to strengthen the argument for keeping it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I posted an article on Evelyn Taft. I don't care about the babe blogs. She's notable because she's on a major news station, watched by thousands daily, and is quite accomplished for someone her age. Lindsapw (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I participated in the deletion discussion, but I did not make the final decision to delete the article. Once again, there are guidelines for notability and none of the facts you expressed fit the guidelines. If you want to appeal this decision, you should read the deletion review guidelines. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for helping me via the reference desk. Keep up the good work! lasombra bg (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i am using a public computer with the same IP address so this would not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for bringing your IP's vandalism of the Drink article to my attention. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation[edit]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British Bangladeshi[edit]

Thanks for the message but the citing of reference I am not knowing how to do. As for accuracy of what I added it is from Channel 4 and BBC1 Panorama programmes, and I also know from mu own experience as I am part of that community with 'insider' knowledge. (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To cite a reference, please see our guide on citing sources. In this case, the information you added is rather controversial, so careful sourcing is suggested. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work[edit]

Good work on that ip you reported User talk: Person asked me whether I'm a sock puppet of yours! I dont know why!! Good hunting and good day. Shriram (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I suppose he accused you of sockpuppetry because you gave him a civility warning after he vandalized my user page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For this edit summary alone. Your good humour inspires us all. RandomAct(talk to me) 04:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've been welcomed... again!



Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Ron Halls (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Barnstar For You![edit]

Civility Award
For the true fact that no twinkle template can ever recreate your friendly demeanour (see my talk page for the story). Interchangeable|talk to me 22:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am honored; thank you! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only needed those three messages to realize that you were the friendliest Wikipedian I had ever seen. I hope you'll enjoy this next star. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template testing[edit]

Hi Orange Suede Sofa,

This summer, you left some feedback on the Huggle experiment that Steven Walling and the WMF summer research team ran on level one vandalism warnings. I wanted to let you know that we're currently finishing up a second iteration of that experiment and about to run a third with all level one Huggle warnings (test, blanking, NPOV, etc.). The draft templates are up on the wiki. Feel free to peruse them and let us know what you think:

  1. {{uw-test1-rand}}
  2. {{uw-delete1-rand}}
  3. {{uw-npov1-rand}}
  4. {{uw-unsor1-rand}}
  5. {{uw-error1-rand}}
  6. {{uw-blank1-rand}}
  7. {{uw-spam1-rand}}
  8. {{uw-bio1-rand}}
  9. {{uw-attack1-rand}}

We're watching the talk pages and welcome as much community input as possible!

I also wanted to give you a heads up about something we're thinking of trying with Twinkle. There's been some community discussion (here and here) about the fact that deletion notifications sent by Twinkle look exactly like user warnings, even though they're not. I've drafted some new templates with the aim of testing to see if these do better at getting authors to participate in deletion discussions and/or improve their articles (because right now the numbers are dismally low). If this sounds interesting to you, it would be great if you could look over them and let me know what you think about this as a possible A/B test! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The things you see when you forget to remove pages from your watchlist...[edit]

I care. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aw, shucks! I'm blushing now! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to block the IP vandalizing the Shining[edit]

Did it again.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; I've reported it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In re your comment of 21:49 17 Dec at WT:RD, I think you should have another look at WP:REVDEL. RD4 is specifically the wrong reason to use, it's not even on the dropdown menu. I could have used the "other reason" dropdown pick and just filled in the comment field, but I chose RD5 from the dropdown. I did use the comment field to make clear the underlying reason, to the full extent I was able - I left it blank. That was all I had to say at the time, that it was a "other valid reason under policy". The completed suppression request retrospectively makes it an RD4 deletion, but we can't say so beforehand. That's the nature of oversight, it needs to be done quickly and quietly, and that is why there's an audit committee to be sure it isn't used improperly. And that's where the questions should be asked no matter how confusing it is. I think that was mentioned in the thread once or twice... ;) Franamax (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your note-- I've requested lots of privacy-related oversight before so I agree with the need for some discretion, but in this case, I didn't fully understand that your actions happened to fall into a particular category of sensitivity until I saw another editor's comment before it was redacted. So yes, I now better understand what transpired; I just wish there was a way to better communicate that (particularly in places like the refdesk, where regulars tend to view even routine content deletion with wariness). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the point here is that it really doesn't matter whether or not you (or anyone else) really needs to "fully understand" any particular case. You, me, and anyone else needs to know that we have a clear policy, a request/approval mechanism, and an "oversight of oversight" mechanism (set up, I do believe, because of this sort of drama stirred up by people sitting in comfortable chairs, and some truly questionable cases). If you've submitted privacy-related requests before, I'm sure you'll agree that the priority is to remove the material as quickly as possible, so that as few people as possible are able to view the material. It's unfortunate you were able to view further details, that will not happen again without serious consequences. As to the RefDesk community approach, uhh, maybe that community needs to recognize that there are site-wide policies not subject to the RD "approach". Policy needs to be addressed on policy discussion pages or at the village pump or CENT or (in a case such as this) by individual TP query or privately, not at a noticeboard, which WT:RD effectively amounts to (it is in the 10 biggest talk archives on en:wiki). Franamax (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I was actually agreeing with you, so no need to belabor the point. As for the RD, nobody is suggesting to take a different approach there. Rather, content deletion discussions are a frequent topic of debate and that, possibly combined with the recent spate of admin credibility issues, means that shouldn't be a big surprise when admin actions come under a bit more scrutiny than usual. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for the response to my question at the Reference Desk (re MLA style). I hope I have clarified enough that you understand my question now. Best wishes. --Eisfbnore talk 11:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of interest? continued vandalism on Talk:Keystone Pipeline[edit]

Even after a warning on User talk:Arthur Rubin (subst:uw-tpv1|Talk:Keystone pipeline), continued violations of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments ...

This is not the first time Admin Rubin has deleted or refactored other's talk pages, mostly related to sustainability; below are a few examples ... (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sympathy for your position (your edits are clearly not spam or vandalism and it annoys me that they are being tagged as such), but if you were to save the energy you're putting into reverting the talk page and posting this stuff everywhere and instead actually improve the article, everyone would be happy, no? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Miss seeing you on IRC. Pinetalk 07:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I may very well find my way back there soon. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worse things happen at sea, but..[edit]

a sub heading in Tay Bridge disaster has been lovingly edited by you from 'Evidence of the bridge remains' to 'Evidence from the bridge remains' . This presumably a good faith improvement, but evidence of a witness is - to the best of my knowledge - the more normal construction in UK English , which is what the article is written in. That this was definitely so in the past can be readily verified from the transcript of the Court of Inquiry into the disaster; in particular counsel for Sir Thomas Bouch asserts 'that in every case the evidence of the ruins (which looks to be an even better subheading) is that it was the lugs which gave' Rjccumbria (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, thank you. I was not familiar with that particular variation, particularly when used with objects bereft of consciousness such as bridge remains. I find your corrective edits appropriate and elegant. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User trouble[edit]

Hey there. It seems you've been having repeated encounters with this user called Bens dream, who was dormant from Wikipedia for what, four years? Well, he got into an altercation with me when I reverted an edit where he called it "Defense of the Allegiance", which I took for vandalism, while it was him trying to call it "Defence of the Ancients", which is still incorrect, as the game he was editing is explicitly called "Dota 2". Even after being provided an explanation, he's reverted both of our edits, (3-strike rule, as you mentioned before). You see, I'm not interested in drawing this altercation out further and having me central to it, as I was an innocent bystander with his editing. So, if you feel compelled to report him, I'll understand and you can cite my altercation, but in all honesty, I'm guessing that he's just probably an adolescent who doesn't know how to really use Wikipedia and cope with criticism, (hence, the Dota 2 naming convention and calling me an "idiot"). I don't really know. What's the approach that you and Equazcion have been looking at? I'm asking, because I only see an AN/I case, unfortunately. DarthBotto talkcont 22:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I think this is just a case of a well-meaning but misguided editor. This is nowhere near an AN/I case yet; at the time you posted this here there still wasn't even any discussion on the talk page (which has since been started). The recent cases have all been bona fide content disputes which unfortunately are made a little annoying by a particularly tendentious editor. I agree with Equazcion that the vandalism warnings were unwarranted and that may have exacerbated the situation somewhat. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yeah, the vandalism warning kind of blew it out of proportion. I should have merely reverted on the basis of good-faith edits; I did not realize he was unaware of the nature of Dota 2's name. Anyways, I believe he's probably just a young lad who's learning about Wikipedia and reacted strongly. DarthBotto talkcont 02:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Jack Block Park[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved As you can see from the external links, Paris Records is releasing this as an album. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I can't see that— there's a link to a record label blog that claims that some spoken-word album will be released in 2010, but it apparently never happened. In addition, this article remains an article about a sports article and not any associated creative works. There isn't even any mention in the body of the article about any album. Clearly inappropriate categorization, and I see another editor has reverted your continued tagging. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seattle shootings[edit]

So… do you think we should go ahead and move 2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree to something else? I don't have a preference but agree with you that the current one doesn't quite work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukobe (talkcontribs)

I'm checking what the standard practice is here. It seems evenly split between "massacre" and "shooting". I'll report back to the article talk page when I'm done. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! (And whoops--sorry for forgetting to sign my comment! I'm out of practice...) --Lukobe (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm quite busy right now, and I don't have time to look. Might I ask why I must justify reverting someone who changes sourced information in thousands of articles by using an unapproved bot? Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the curt response, but I'm trying to prepare for an out-of-town conference while juggling work and school. Nearly all of the reversions were needed to restore sourced information that was changed without explanation in violation of WP:CITE, WP:V, and other core policies and to restore demographic information that was deleted without any discussion, let alone consensus as demanded by the WP:bot policy — completely aside from the flagrant violation of the bot policy in operating an unauthorised bot on the user's own account. I apologise for the false positives, but as I explained to Ammodramus already, the edits I checked were not problematic, and when you're dealing with disruption at hundreds or perhaps over a thousand articles, you need to get as much done as possible. I suggest that you resolve the issues with these pages by performing further reversions to restore the deleted content. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks— I agree entirely on the unauthorized bot issue. My concern stemmed from the claimed consensus regarding maintenance of the 2000 census data, which seems odd to me in principle (why would we want to keep outdated information except as an entry in a table of historical data?). In addition, the blanket reversion of thousands of edits without an appropriate edit summary felt bitey, particularly since a random spotcheck of articles didn't reveal at all why the reversion was warranted (I chose this one first and it was entirely unclear why the reversion was performed). Fortunately, it looks like the editor is going through the motions for bot approval and I have little doubt that the outcome will result in a net positive for the project. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reuben Hazell[edit]

Hi, I have updated Reuben Hazells article to bring in info on his season last season, however im having trouble formatting the references ive included.

Can you please take a look?!

Thanks Salopian123 (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this has already been done. Thanks for updating the information! Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the reversion[edit]

Just wondering but why the reversion of my edits to ANI? Kumioko (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoa, total mistake/mis-click. I didn't even realize it until I saw your note here— my apologies. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries I was just curious. It looks like someone else undid your revision anyway so its back. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From RCNesland[edit]

Thank you for your advice concerning deleting or archiving. I will check out the Guideline. I now agree that the article on Conrad Hilton is not a Norway related article and I regret suggesting it is. Sincerely. RCNesland (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interwiki links[edit]

It's not an editing mistake. I'm cleaning up the links as they correspond to a different topic.Frysun (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. I strongly recommend using edit summaries in the future when making changes like that, as it may not be clear to other editors why those links were removed. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foothill High School[edit]

With regard to the edit regarding Brittany MaComb and Foothill High School, You may use my Name if you wish. Everything I wrote is absolutely accurate.

I AM THE SOURCE of my essay reply. I was there when it happened and was involved in the after effects. My name is:[redacted], I am a Professional Educator for the Clark County School District, College of Southern Nevada, and UNLV. I can attest to everything I said and YOU MAY use my name. . . [redacted]

You just need to set the record straight since your site really abuses the reputation of Foothill High School, its administration and teaching staff. I think we're entitled to an honest rebuttal.

Hello: I understand your frustration but Wikipedia has strong policies regarding any information regarding living persons. In addition, personal statements are not considered reliable because we have no way of knowing who you really are. If you would like to add more information to this article, please use information that can be verified in a reliable source. Having said that, I can also see that the "controversy" section of this article is also poorly sourced. Let me take a look at that section and see if there's anything to be done. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: You must be thirsty after that research[edit]

Your very good health sir! I knew I was right but it was a struggle to prove it.

I've never attempted a yard, but I understand the trick is in breaking the air-lock that develops in the bulb at the end. However, there's a bottle of Adnams with my name on it for later on tonight. Cheers. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Dirty Love" Edit[edit]

Jakelly64 here. I fixed the edit that you messaged me about a little bit ago. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jakelly64 (talkcontribs)

ChainHome Radar edit.[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the message. I'm new to this so any tips are welcome!Cmpltd (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC) JimReply[reply]

Delete & Restore[edit]

Dear Mr. Sofa:

Thank you for restoring some info for me. I will now regress to an earlier issue. I had removed some info from a Hilton talk page by using the backspace. This was mostly things which I had placed there and it seems there was one or more comments which were based on what I had written. This pertained to the question of whether that page was Norway related or not. I thought it was Norway related and put in a comment to that effect. After some more study I concluded that it was not Norway related and I removed my comments and the related comments. I thought that a user who noticed that removal might guess correctly that I had simply taken back what I had said and that the absencs of those words were no loss to anyone and might be advantageous. I do not know of a reason to archive words which should not have been written. I meant well in what I was doing.I will use caution in deletions as I always have. Sincerely; RCNesland (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Bismarck[edit]

Hi OSS, that IP has been trolling me for years (he's the indef'd User:Labyrinth13) so I didn't feel the need to explain why what he changed was wrong. Thanks though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK; got it. I suppose per WP:DENY there wasn't much choice then, but it did look confusing to the casual observer. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No, that was not the intent, but it's fine. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. I'd be curious to know what the intent was; the past tense in the original clause didn't make sense because presumably the evidence still exists. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The matter surely does. Its interpretation, that's quite another thing. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i don't follow what you said. what broken template? both articles were reviewed and the templates removed. regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit added the text "{clarify}}", which lacked a second opening brace. The end result looked like this (see "Alternative Schools" six lines below the "Public" header). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. This was due to my new keyboard, as I explained. And the Cowboy Bebop article I need not even mention. Thank you again! Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Orange Suede Sofa. You have new messages at Jeepday's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hello, Orange Suede Sofa. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 01:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Thanks for advocating your opinion. You articulate your thoughts really well. WorldTraveller101Did I mess up? 01:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Orange Suede Sofa,

Thanks for letting me know about the revision I accepted. I'm glad you caught my mistake.

Sosthenes12 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12Reply[reply]

Charles Whitman[edit]

Hi OrangeSuedeSofa. Thanks for the update on the Whitman article. Seems like you have resolved the issue regarding the depth of info. on the arsenal used. Always good to encounter editors who step in to resolve potential friction between 2 other editors with minor disagreements.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watchlist gadget[edit]

There is indeed; I wrote one of the several, actually. Just put the line: .mw-rollback-link {display: none;}

into your common.css page, and you should be good to go. :) Writ Keeper  04:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Done and done. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the work on The Great Gatsby[edit]

Thanks for your tweeks to the The Great Gatsby article. You have an excellent eye! This article I believe would likely pass GA review even now. I think it's getting close to FA status. We'll see. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and my pleasure! I've never been involved in a GA/FA review so I may want to tag along. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm curious how you detected the close paraphrasing in the article. Did you do it manually or is there an automated tool that helps with this. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, I noticed the phrase "beside himself", thought it too colloquial, went to the cited source to see what they were saying so I could re-word the article, and found the phrase again in the source itself. I then found a couple of other similarities ("up to the last minute / up to the last moment") so got rid of them too. There don't seem to be any good on-wiki tools for detecting cases like that, however. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Excellent work. Those are the kinds of things that are really hard to spot but can sink a GA. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Orange Suede Sofa. You may have noticed but I submitted The Great Gatsby article for GA review a few days ago. It can takes weeks for someone to get around to it. (Significant contributors are not allowed to review the article.) You mentioned an interest in knowing more about the GA process. It'd be a great time to learn about it if you wish. It takes about an hour, maybe two, to carefully peruse Wikipedia:Good_articles and the most important tangent links. A content contributor like yourself would benefit from knowing the good article criteria. I'm not an expert in GA review either (I've never performed a review myself) so I've re-read everything just to get up-to-date. Another guideline of interest to us is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. I should read that carefully myself. Anyway, your recent edits have been awesome. Recently I've been focused on other stuff but when I get a chance I'll return to this article to try to beef it up even further. I have FA hopes for the future! Jason Quinn (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Orange Suede Sofa. By now you probably noticed that we made GA status. Thank you for all your help! I'm sort of Gatsby'ed out for the moment so I'm taking a break from it, although I think getting FA status (and maybe even front page!) might not be too much more work. I kind of liked doing the GA review. I now have my eyes set on doing Nineteen Eighty-Four or perhaps Fahrenheit 451. The Nineteen Eighty-Four article seems to be in fairly good shape while the Fahrenheit 451 one seems underdeveloped. I've read both books but it's been so long that I don't remember much. I started re-reading Fahrenheit 451 tonight because it's a quick read. If you have interest in either of those articles, you may wish to put them on your watchlist. I already made some preliminary edits. As with Great Gatsby, if I start to focus on one or both of them for improvement, it would be a slow process (meaning it could take months to finish as I edit only when the mood strikes me). They are both good books deserving of GA status. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! It was fun. And I've read both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Fahrenheit 451 so I may be able to help out when it is time to do so. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that.[edit]

In case you don't read the edit history, I accidentally edited an old version of the Boston bombing page instead of the current, so did more than I wanted.

I added the part you don't like to update the contextual bit about him being "expected to recover". I agree that we don't need any future context, just trying to keep the format consistent.

Definitely not trying to edit war, but it might look that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all— I figured it was a reversion issue so I didn't make a fuss. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not trying to make a fuss about the capitalization, either. I suppose you could say "Transit Police Officer", if you really want uppercase. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you!


I reverted your deletion of the thematic content on Gravity (film). Please join the discussion: Talk:Gravity_(film)#Themes. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the note— it's always nice to see WP:BRD work as intended. Best regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trees (poem)[edit]

Orange Suede Sofa, I reply to your comments at Talk:Trees (poem)/Archives/2019/August#Superman II's critical commentary of this poem. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Any idea where I can get a nice sofa like that? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orangemike I hear there were sofas at Wikimania. You could ask WMUK if they have spare orange suede sofas. --Pine 08:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recommend Roche Bobois; there's one just south of you in Chicago. Although if you're already orange, I would suggest purple— just far enough away on the color wheel to provide striking contrast without being as gauchely complementary as blue. Best of luck, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ramona splashing in the fountain[edit]

The source is correct. The fountain is just not turned on when that pic was taken. But the Falcon Guide source reports she is splashing in the fountain. I confirmed this as well, while playing there with my daughter earlier today! Cheers! --Gaff ταλκ 07:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I did— but the design of the fountain is such that you can't even see that it's a fountain if it's not turned on, so I was fooled. I replied in more detail on your talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My error.slip of the mouse. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I understand your feelings about the article as it is, but when it was considered for deletion, it seems to have been important that I added those ca. 20 newspapers. Before that, the votes were 4–0 for deletion, but after I “belaboured”, it went 8–4 in favour of “Keep”. So I feel that it was not for nothing that I did add those newspaper references. And it shows the extent to which people and media in Finland took these “allegations” seriously.

If you like, you could have a look at the edits from an IP number, and just consider whether it was necessary to delete the reference to “Russia or pro-Russia elements”. Yours sincerely, -- Apanuggpak (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your note and I appreciate the work you've put into the article! I've been involved in a few deletion discussions myself and I understand the value of having plenty of reliable third party sources when arguing to keep an article. Yet it's rarely necessary to put all of those sources in the body of the article itself if they don't add anything new or unique to the article; documenting them in the AfD discussion is usually good enough. If this article comes up for AfD again, you can certainly point to the diff as a good overview of the media coverage, and I'll be watching the page so I'll add my opinion as well if it comes to it.
As for the MH17 IP edits— I do have my private opinions about what happened to MH17 but not even the MH17 article itself is bold enough to definitively state what happened until the Dutch Safety Board report is delivered. When that happens, then the Finnair can be updated as appropriate. Terveisin, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You removed the word "massive" in this edit stating that "electromagnetic radiation doesn't have mass".

This assumes that the word "massive" correlates directly with the scientific definition of "mass", when it doesn't. Whatever the common roots of the two terms, modern use of the word "massive" can also be abstract. Please see here for more details.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ubcule— thanks for the note. I'm actually familiar with both definitions, and my edit summary was perhaps too tongue-in-cheek. I actually removed it because "massive" was both too vague and unsupported by the cited source. All the source said was that the TRS-80 failed new emissions standards without making reference to the degree of interference. I'm not going to make any further edits along these lines, but you may want to reconsider your restoration based on this reasoning. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's sometimes hard to judge these things, but it wasn't too obviously a joke, so I took it at face value.
FWIW, your reason is fair enough, but it's not something I could have guessed from the original summary- with or without the tongue-in-cheek comment! At any rate, I've removed "massive" from the article. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: Yu Darvish[edit]

Yes, he's still with the Rangers and yes, he was out for all of 2015. Which is why it says 2012–2014 because he didn't play in 2015. Should he play in 2016 (which I'm pretty sure will happen) then it would be 2012–2014, 2016–present. I know it looks weird, but that's how the Baseball Project does things on Wikipedia. A player has to make an appearance during the season. – Michael (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I figured it might have been a project practice or something. Maybe include a link to the relevant guideline in the edit summary next time to help educate the uninformed? Thanks! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I just got your Message[edit]

Please help me with...

I'm sorry I thought when I added something I needed to have a citation. I just noticed they didn't have a new picture of a 2015 Jeep and no game play photos for Jeep Thrills. I will not leave a link again on here, but could you please remove my site from the spam list I was only trying to help the community and I am reading this could hurt my rankings with search engines. I really appreciate the consideration and it will not happen again. I read over the user guidelines and I am very clear now. I really would appreciate it. Thank you very much for the consideration!! Recruiternick (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy new year[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:


Airline fleet image discussion[edit]

I took the liberty of copying the discussion (including your contribution) to the airlines project as I started it in the wrong place. Hope you didnt mind. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files listed for discussion[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your uploads. Some of your images have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 21#Keep_local_vs._Commons if you want to add your opinion. --XXN, 20:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belated holiday greetings[edit]

I miss seeing you around here. I hope that you are well. Merry Christmas and happy new year.
↠Pine () 16:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! There's been some stuff that needs editing so I'm back. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting evaluations of The Great Gatsby FAC nomination[edit]

Hello, Orange Suede Sofa. As you previously assisted with a GA review of The Great Gatsby article, I was hoping you might weigh in with your opinion—whether pro or con—on its ongoing nomination as a Featured Article Candidate. As any Wikipedia editor can participate in a review of a FAC nomination, it would be appreciated if you would contribute an objective evaluation of the article. → Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Great_Gatsby/archive2Flask (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gaye's sobriety[edit]

It's funny you say you don't find it relevant, because I agree with you. The addition was suggested years ago in the FA review and I said at the time that I thought it wasn't relevant. I was just rereading the source about it and decided on the spur of the moment to add it to see how it feels but on reflection I think I was right the first time. Out of scope. Popcornfud (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for checking in! Not only was it irrelevant, but it also drew an inappropriate connection between his impairment and choosing the 808. I'm surprised that became an issue in the FA review. BTW, I saw your note on TR-909; my only other remaining question is as to whether the TR-09 sentence belongs in either Release or Legacy. It could belong in Release in the same way that TR-707 is mentioned, or it could belong in Legacy because its enduring appeal is what caused Roland to bring it back to market. Happy beatmaking, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for taking a look at Alexis Restaurant. I'm currently working on Post Alley Pizza and Ristorante Machiavelli, if you have any thoughts on sourcing on those. Either way, happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy to help! For Machiavelli, one thought is that the Bon Appétit article currently in the external links could address WP:AUD as well. Something like "Machiavelli was featured in a series of Bon Appétit articles about old-school Italian restaurants in the United States" or whatever. All of this is making me hungry, so I can do this later tonight if you haven't gotten to it already. BTW— I live on Vashon and am happy to grab any restaurant pics on the island should any of those require your attention in the future. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any Vashon restaurants on my radar at the moment, but good to know and appreciate the offer. I gotta get back to work! Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why’d you remove my edit?[edit]

Why’d you remove my edit on the Josip Broz article? Do you hate information? Napalm Guy (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love accurate information, and if you want to claim that Tito directly participated in the Spanish civil war, you will need a reliable source. I suggest that if you think the information stated in the article about this topic is inaccurate, bring it to the talk page with your sources. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Naches WA, November 2015.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

On Commons, no reason to keep locally

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) {user page (@ commons) - talk} 14:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]