User talk:OrangeJacketGuy

making talk page... OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, OrangeJacketGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. Believe it or not, I made (several) similar mistakes during my early years in Wikipedia. Please continue contributing to the encyclopedia and contact me if you have any questions. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Falklands

You do know that this is moving away from the consensus, right?

If you want to leave it as-is until more people arrive, please self-revert now. The original edit was this, based on the clearly false claim that WP:UNITS does not include the words "imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts", followed by a list of such contexts. Kahastok talk 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in an edit war and are only using consensus when it suits you. If you actually cared about consensus then please involve outside editors like I was saying. Do not threaten me to self-revert like that again. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you interpreted as a threat there. I cannot threaten you to self-revert - I cannot even see how the sentence makes sense. Only you can self-revert. But if a threat was inferred then I apologise.

I also have no idea how you can construe that as being a current consensus, over the previous version, agreed by all parties, that has been on the articles for several years.

I care about consensus. I cannot see how the current consensus can be interpreted as anything other than the version that has been on the article effectively for the last three years or so. If you think that your version is consensus, do you mind explaining your logic to me? Kahastok talk 20:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to explain one single thing to anyone involved in a pissing match like that, and like I said, if you cared, bring in other people, you no longer can bring constructive conversation to the table. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, neither can you. Apparently you're not interested that we've tried bringing in outside parties many times and that consensus has never been reached for change. Apparently you're not interested in the argument that says that repeatedly asking the same question over and over again until you get the answer you want is not a reasonable means of getting consensus. Apparently you're not interested that when Martin first called for metrication, we did everything we could to accommodate his concerns and reach a mutually acceptable solution, but ultimately it fell down because he repeatedly tried to trick us into accepting full metrication. That's sad. But I tried. Kahastok talk 21:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit something else to keep beating the dead horse when I've clearly disembarked. Please don't continue this. Go away. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by Kahastok

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kahastok is disrupting a GA attempt) Martinvl (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formalising the status of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

The page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OrangeJacketGuy. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Boise, Idaho

Hi! I know you have consistently shown interest in the above article. It puzzles me as to why you would re-instate unreferenced content about a Red linked event. One of the criteria for elevating an article to a higher status is eliminating red-links. It is also important to improve references. I took it back out but would not object to its reinstatement, provided it is referenced and the redlink removed. I doubt the film festival will ever be notable. Only things that do not yet have articles but obviously qualify for them should be red linked. And needless to say, all content should be referenced. A cite to an article about it in the Statesman, or better yet an out-of-town paper, would be best. If all else fails, citing the festival's website would be better than unreferenced. John from Idegon (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It puzzles me how you would react so strongly to something you only needed to click three times to correct; however I do have to give you credit that you actually did so and with your actual name and gave a reason that time. Perhaps you need to chill instead of reacting so strongly? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to offend and sorry if you were. I never edit as an IP, BTW. I took the time to explain to you why I did what I did, that's all. I do not have the internet access time to do much research these days, or I would have just done it myself. Hope you will take my suggestions for what they are, constructive. Happy editing. Good luck with finding sources. I will help when I can. John from Idegon (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, read WP:OVERREACT and have a nice day. No more communication is needed on this. Seriously. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who has made less that 50 edits in over 2 years...

Maybe you should step away from the keyboard all together and leave it to people who know what they are doing.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civility...

I am more that happy to be civil. I lost my cool when you reverted my goodfaith edit without taking it to the talk page. Nobody is a fan of having their work deleted. I feel like BYU added as a rival recently in the info box, earlier today actually just with the inacurate description of "BYU and Boise have been rivals for the last 15 years", was inaccurate. Then you reverted my work. It wasn't there before, I don't see a reason for it to be added now. That is all. I was simply editing the page for accuracy. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jennifer Locke (September 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Unfortunately, Ms. Locke does not meet our notability guidelines for politicians at this time. Until she either holds office or gains major, national news coverage, it's a bit WP:TOOSOON for her to have her own article. Please see Notability for politicians for more information. I do hope you'll consider improving content related to Republicans, Idaho, and women in politics elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thank you!

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jennifer Locke and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jennifer Locke, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Missvain (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OrangeJacketGuy! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Missvain (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jennifer Locke concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jennifer Locke, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jennifer Locke

Hello, OrangeJacketGuy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jennifer Locke".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Train of Knowledge (Talk) 07:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Islander

A couple of years ago you were involved in discussions at Falkland Islanders. I am going to do a request for comment on the claim you wanted excluded, as preparation I have prepared a (hopefully) neutral summary of discussions on the page. If you want you can ave a look and see if you think it is neutral, if you feel it is unfair comment on my talk page and I will edit the summary.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I wasn't too harsh, Boynamedsue. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not mate, I disagree with you but you should write whatever you feel to be true. Thanks for contributing. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]