Jump to content

User talk:MikeWazowski/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Odd Title

You know that we can't call it Season 4 seeing as there are NO given references, and 'Undubbed' is to wired so what should they be called K.O.K Kev (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I Understand But, That Page Has to have a name change. This is not a forum, so we can't dub those episodes that season without reliable refereances, so what other title(s) do yo propose K.O.K Kev (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It does not "have to" have a name change now. Wait until more is known. Seriously - your personal opinions don't enter into it right now. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep adding episodes 93 through 149 back to the Road to Destiny page? If there really is a Season 4, your edits aren't showing that. Please be consistant with your edits, in order not to confuse people. By the way, If there will be no Season 4, then why don't you just delete the page already? Anyways, if there won't be a Season 4, please present your source, so that I may also agree with you. With thanks, 72.197.237.120 (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars title

As you've initiated the change and have been reverted by two editors, please start a discussion on the talk page to help determine consensus. You're currently in conflict with 3RR, so it'd be better off to determine among editors what's clear for readers for the title. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

I noticed a user who deleted the Season 4 section, and added unreferenced episode information to the Season 3 page. I understand that the information there might have not been clear enough for him, but he still disrupted Wikipedia by his edits. 72.197.237.120 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sliders - Series Revived after Cancellation

I was curious why you undid the revision on the Sliders article which placed it in the "Television series revived after cancellation" category? Fox actually did cancel Sliders at the end of season three in 1997; Universal Studios, through Sci-Fi Channel, then revived Sliders for a season four which began airing in 1998.

There are several things I disagree with in the revived Television category list (and perhaps the list should be dismantled), but Sliders is a text book example of the list description.DBHughes (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

regarding List of Detroit 1-8-7 episodes and ABC press releases for scheduled episodes

I have centralised the discussion about referencing of Detroit 1-8-7 to Talk:List of Detroit 1-8-7 episodes#the 14th & 15th episodes and as one of those who has objected to the ABC press releases being acceptable sources you are invited to join in and explain beyond edit summary constraints why you object. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 06:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Sorry"

You do not need to agree but WP:SOURCEACCESS is clear. The LA Times and other newspapers can be accessed at libraries or by obtaining a copy through the publisher. I also have multiple articles not available online if you want them emailed to you. However, this is not mandatory so stop reverting. Cptnono (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(driveby) Mike, if you have a library card for your state system, there's a good chance that you can gain access to the pay sites for free from your home computer by logging into the library site which serves as a proxy. State of NC Library system works this way. Also, Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives & Wikipedia:News sources/Collections might come in handy for you sometime. Hopefully helpful,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Dan Schneider

Could you please stop changing the formatting to this page? It is currently fine the way it is. Tinton5 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Warner Bros.

I have restored the edit you undid. Please explain your action if you revert the article back again, as the text you restored was nonsensical (as written, its literal claim was "Brothers" is not an abbreviation for "brothers"), inconsistent (supposing it was intended to claim "Bros." is not an abbrevation for "brothers" which is inconsistent with the abbreviation's English meaning AND is inconsistent within the article itself which states the studio was named after brothers with the Warner name as described in the History section). Further, the reference link you restored was a blank page, and I could not find any corroboration on the Warner Bros. website disputing that Bros. is an abbreviation of Brothers.

If you dispute the revision, please discuss it in the talk page. The original editor, logged by I.P. address instead of a logged-in name, explained their edit, but you did not seem to discuss it before reverting their edit inexplicably. Thanks. --Chibiabos (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

Hey, you don't seem keen to engage in discussion on Talk:Brazil_(film). I was just wondering why you are so emphatic that Brazil is not a Christmas film? It has constant Christmas imagery throughout. If you look through Category:Christmas films you will find many movies, for example Die Hard, Die Hard 2, Black Christmas (1974 film), Black Christmas (2006 film), Lethal Weapon, Gremlins, The Ice Harvest, Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation, etc that seem to be in the category simply because they are set at Christmas but have far less actual Christmas imagery and content than Brazil. Can you explain why they are Christmas films while Brazil is not, or are you also planning on removing them from the category? Pearce.duncan (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indiana Jones needs more than a bullwhip for help

Greetings - could you come back and set new eyes on the article, maybe add to the suggestions? Some of us think this article is a mess, badly structured and should be strictly about the fictional character of Indiana, a fictional character bio. I am willing to restructure the writing but I do not have lots of time or super-editing experience.76.195.85.160 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot length tag

Any specific reason you reverted my removal of the tag at How to Train Your Dragon (film)? Without any reason, no less. I explained my removal in my edit summary, if you disagree with that, I'm all ears. --Conti|✉ 18:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lowestoft articles

Just wanted to pop by and say thanks for helping out on these just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

MikwWazowski these articals are being developed by me with disscusions with Blue Square Thing do not keep re-verting my edits!!!(Darkcover21 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

Don't drag me into it - Mike has every right to edit them as he sees fit. I'm looking to work on other articles just now. And do some real work.--Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Darkcover21, until I see some basic understanding of spelling, grammar, and punctuation from you (and I've seen little from you thus far), I will continue to edit "articals" you contribute to as I see fit. Also, please read WP:OWN, as you do not have the right to tell anyone not to edit any article. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats not point. My spelling is checked by spellchecker. Point being you just edit articals to remove the stuff that ive added as edits!! not beacuse; you have added any content yourself what so ever!!. MikwWazowski you are real pain as you are just trying to stop what im editing nothing else!!. In the same footing of WP:OWN, you should not realley keep trying to stop me from editing on Wiki!!. I think you ourght to be carefull what your saying as your doing that to me!!!. As well my aim is never to stop anybody editeing wiki!! Just to stop a certain somebody from deleting and removeing my good content editeing contributions to wiki!!! Dont see you adding any content to Lowestoft Articals and if you did i wouldent remove it ither!! (Darkcover21 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

Good lord, man - LOOK at what you just posted! Your writing style is hideous... MikeWazowski (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert?

Could you explain why you reverted this? I don't see this as vandalism... and the ip has asked me to look in to it. I'll watch this page for your response. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Same question from me; I think some of their edits were not formatted properly, but I'd AGF unless proven otherwise. They asked me for help too, and I told 'em to start a discussion - see here.

If there is more to this than meets the eye, please let me know. Otherwise, please discuss it on Talk:List of film production companies, Thanks,  Chzz  ►  16:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mongrels and List of Mongrels episodes

Hi there,

I've just noticed that same user is reverting the articles for Mongrels (TV series) and List of Mongrels episodes again. Annoyingly I edited the Mongrels (TV series) article before I spotted the vandalism. ISD (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for clearing the mess up. ISD (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - it looks like the same user is editing out all the information about Destiny being self-centred again. Is there some way we can stop this user from making these edits? ISD (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. ISD (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That user, 86.167.177.120 is back again changing the articles. ISD (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

McCrumb

Thank you for your message. My purpose in editing the Sharyn McCrumb page was to update and expand upon the one source cited (a 2004 Library Journal article. My sources are verifiable and credible, and no content in the article deviates from these sources. I am not in the employ of Mrs. McCrumb. I do provide library research assistance to her in my capacity as a librarian. Thank you for the reminder on the COI. I was unaware of this policy, and I will correct any information that might lead readers to believe the article is biased.LoraOlivia (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)LoraOlivia

Permission is being sent to Wikipedia from the owner of the Sharyn McCrumb site, so my temporary page will probably be deleted in favor of the information I originally posted.LoraOlivia (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)LoraOlivia

"Spock Principle"

Even if you disagree with the usage of the term "Spock Principle", why did you remove the entire quote box, unless you're saying that your opinion on the matter supersedes that of the Supreme Court of Texas? Also, the other part of the article that you removed quite clearly states that utility theory pre-dates Spock .... but while J.S. Mill may pre-date Spock, I can guarantee you that if you did a random survey of people on the street more of them will have heard of Spock, and for Wikipedia that's what counts. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike - This is issue appears to have been settled. Erikeltic (Talk) 17:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Stick Man

Thanks for cleaning up all of that spam.   Will Beback  talk  23:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a way to pass the time... :) MikeWazowski (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - so what did 81.151.238.212 post that was so bad to get it perma-removed? MikeWazowski (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing particularly witty, really; it was just a brief rant regarding your... Shall we say smartness? Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't surprise me - this guy's been IP hopping and/or insulting me when he gets caught for months now... MikeWazowski (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Remember, now that you have rollback you'll see links to it when you visit a contributions, history or watchlist page. If you have a touchsceen device you may accidentally fat finger it and revert some random good edits! Just go back and revert yourself and everything will be cool. Good luck using the tool. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with with which you may have been involved. Anything you would like to contribute to the recent issues with Jake Fuersturm would be helpful. Erikeltic (Talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

America: The Story of Us

Are you aware that this is the first time it's aired in Canada? It's most certainly not, as you say, a "secondary" airing as far as Canada is concerned. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So? Are you going to start adding in every single airing in every single country? How is this even remotely notable or have any impact on the actual production itself? It's a minor inconsequential detail. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Not the first TV article to bring up the subject of airings. It's notable to Canadians. Or are you saying that Canada is inconsequential? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't try to put words into my mouth - the subject of the article is about a TV series. That's it. A rebroadcast, even in another country, is not inherently notable, unless there was something newsworthy about it, like incredible ratings or some newsworthy controversy/public interest. All you're adding is that it aired. Big whoop - it has no significant bearing on the program itself, and unless you can find some valid justification for it's notability, it doesn't belong. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
And as I said before, it's not a "rebroadcast. It would only be a rebroadcast if Canada is considered part of the U.S., which it's not. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a rebroadcast, in that the original airings, around which all the press and awards are related, was a year ago. These new airings are not inherently notable - they just exist. They're essentially syndication. Unless there is some special notability granted just for some network, Canadian or otherwise, deciding to air the thing, that mention doesn't belong. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
And for the record, would you take this position for Canadian shows that subsequently aired in the U.S. a year later? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
It would depend on the circumstances. This is not a black/white, right/wrong, Jake vs. Wikipedia thing here - I treat things on a case by case basis, looking at notability, press coverage/citations. I will not give you a definite answer on this question, because it cannot be answered definitely without looking at the specifics of a given situation. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Spoken like a true politician. Thanks, that tells me everything I need to know. Cheers. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the passive/agressive snark/insult... nice to see that you're consistent, anyway... MikeWazowski (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No need to be snarky. Protonk (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Cabot meets HarveyCarter

Thanks for the revert. I was starting to think we'd seen the last of this sockpuppet, as he'd given up apparently, but now, months later, he's back again. The 92... ISP is pretty much a giveaway, as is the fact that he hardly even bothers to argue the reversions anymore, which someone new at a similar ISP would certainly do. I wish I could arrange to protect every article he starts in on, but I'm not empowered to do that. Thanks for the vigilance. Monkeyzpop (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

About Deletion of ReduceMail Pro

I'm sorry if I was removing your deletion code. I panicked because I was writing the article for work. If there's anything I can do to make it up, please say. About the article itself, I understand your concern, and I want to see if we can make it work to restore the article to Wikipedia. I feel that the version that only included the history of the product and excluded any of the in-depth technical information from the website is valid. The reason I say this is because a product that does exactly the same thing as ReduceMail Pro, Enterprise Vault, is on Wikipedia. We got off on the wrong foot, and it was my fault. If there's anything we can do to make this work, please say. Ereep (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing you need to understand is that if you are being paid to write an article, or are connected to the company that developed the software, you have a clear conflict of interest and have no business creating or substantially editing such an article. If this software is notable, let someone unconnected write about it independently. Also, in regards to Enterprise Vault, you'd be wise to look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's a poor argument for inclusion. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that I definitely have a conflict of interest. My goal is ultimately for the article to remain itself on Wikipedia, so in order to do that, I will attempt to be as neutral as possible. Granted, I won't go out of the way to include a "criticisms" section, but if it did appear, I wouldn't excise it. If it seems that what I am saying appears biased, then others should criticize the article on that basis, including one of those bias tags, and we should see if we can make it better. I feel that on-the-market software of any sort is notable. To only include the history and describe what the software does is in no way problematic. The language simply needs to remain without value judgments. To prove that I am of good faith, what if I write a Wikipedia article about another piece of software of which I have no relation? Perhaps even a similar competing software to ReduceMail Pro? I truly feel that any type of on-the-market software deserves Wikipedia mention. I am writing the artice for work, but only in so much as I am supposed to be serving the general public knowledge. I'll do anything reasonable I need to do to get this properly back on Wikipedia in a way that only is of benefit. Just say the word and tell me what to do, Mr. Wazowski. Ereep (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You keep saying you're doing this article for work - are you employed by or for the company that makes this software? Because if you are, then you do have a clear conflict of interest, as far as Wikipedia is concerned - I'd advise you t take a look at the specific guidelines and familiarize yourself with them before continuing. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point I don't want to do the article for work. I'm taking myself off the timesheet to write this article. I want to do it for me. I want to to write it at a private citizen. I should have been getting paid for all this stuff relating to trying to get the article back up, but I'm intentionally choosing not to get paid. I'm totally serious. I promise you this: I hereby make it that I am not doing this page for work. I will only work on it from home or when I am not getting paid. I care so much about getting this on that I will forgo my wage whenever I am doing something in relation to this Wikipedia page. I am on my hands and knees, Mr. Wazowski. What do I need to do to make sure that there is no conflict of interest? I will not take any money in relation to this project anymore. It will become a private project relating to my interest in such software. Ereep (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MikeWazowski. You have new messages at Omkar1234's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FWIW

Once again you are being accused of being a proxy of mine. I guess we've come a long way since you reported me for the 3RR I was guilty of a couple of years a back. I only mention that 3RR because it demonstrates that A) we are not in "cahoots", B) we have grown as editors, and C) despite any past issues we can work together at this point. I have come to respect and value your opinion as an editor, but I would recommend just ignoring drama and drop the stick. It's not worth it. Nothing good will come from continued discussion over nonsense. That's my peace and those will be my only comments on the matter. Thanks. Erikeltic (Talk) 22:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever - the guy obviously can't accept that he's at fault in any of the disagreements he's had. I doubt this block will change things. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

sleeping dogs

Oops....

I'd appreciate it if you could stay off Jake's talk page for the duration of his block. It's not helpful. I'm not asserting you've done anything wrong with your edits, that your a puppet of E, or anything like that. He just needs time to cool down. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave him one last chance today to discuss this like an adult - however, his little "warning" just shows me that he still doesn't see that he bears any responsibility for his actions. His loss. I've got better things to do than worry about him from here on - however, he really needs to lay off the wild accusations, or I will bring him up at the Wikiquette boards and let them deal with it, should he continue. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree he needs to refocus his concerns. It's just human nature to lash out if you feel cornered, and I don't think it really hurts anything to let him vent a little bit on his talk page. Gerardw (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It's almost funny watching him rant about how unfair this has all been. Almost. And since I know he's reading and looking for something to add to his list of injustices - regarding his potential SPI witch hunt? Bring it on, kid - I can't wait to see your next conspiracy theory after that idea gets shot down. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Fyi... [1] So unless Wombat Fuerstrum creates yet another sock and/or lives up to his threat of harassing me via anonymous IP, he's going to have some time to think about what he's done. Erikeltic (Talk) 11:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jake's created yet another sock and filed an SPI against us. [2] Erikeltic (Talk) 11:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, darn, it's already been closed and removed... oh well. I'm sure he'll just add this to his conspiracy theory. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No doubt. Erikeltic (Talk) 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

QTalk Arizona

Hi, why did you re-list my article, 'QTalk Arizona', for 'speedy deletion'? see my comments contesting its deletion on its 'talk' page. I am new here and am just trying to play by the rules, but it's difficult to sift thru everything. thanks very much. user:Nidocamen Nidocamen (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I nominated it because you shouldn't write about your own projects, and also because I don't believe it to be notable - one local article is not the significant coverage from reliable sources an article like this needs. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mistake of vandalizing article List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes

I had given the reason of my vandalism related edit in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaced Out Cat. Then I reverted it. Then I got your warning message. After I saw the page List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes, I saw that you had made edits similar to my request. Omkar1234 Space ShuttleOmkar1234!​ 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys & Aliens

Thanks, but I recommend not getting sucked in. His behavior is clear, and hopefully the ANI report will pan out. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your help with the article and the edit warring report. If you have any thoughts on improving the article, please share them on the talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for your tireless efforts. Erikeltic (Talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


As I have recently been reminded of my "rough start" at Wikipedia, I would like to give you this barnstar as a way of saying "Thank you" for your tireless efforts and to apologize for any rudeness or poor behavior I may have shown you when we first encountered one another. Like I wrote to EEMIV (and now to you), guys like you are what make Wikipedia work. Thank you Mike. Erikeltic (Talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Heavenly Creatures locations

It's well-known that the film was shot at the real-life locations. What sort of online source would be considered acceptable? The only other reference is another site, which also discusses this, as do others. I don't know what a "Tripod" site is, so don't understand why it's not okay. Ideas on how to deal with it?--TEHodson 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There are mentions of the real-life locations buried in reviews, but that doesn't seem a good source to me. It was an important decision the filmmakers made to shoot everything exactly where it really took place, so this should be in the article, but as the film was made so long ago I'm having trouble finding a source.--TEHodson 03:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Marking as Patrolled

Hello there Mike. Just a little request. It seems that Twinkle, quite annoyingly, doesn't mark pages as patrolled even when you tag them for WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I've just come across an article, that you'd tagged for WP:CSD on the unpatrolled list. I'm sure you already know, but if you scroll down to the bottom of the article, there will be a little link in square brackets that says mark this page as patrolled. If you click that the it'll get taken off the unpatrolled list and no-one else will come across it. It's not your fault, I know; it's Twinkle's. But until they fix it, it'd be great if you clicked that link just before you tagged an article. I've marked that one as patrolled. Sorry to be a pain. Keep up the good work. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mike, I've just come across another article that was marked for CSD, but not marked as patrolled. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Billy Moses

Hi Mike, Billy Moses clearly passes A7 by being both a notable radio and television personality. Can you please explain why you marked the article for deletion? Thanks. 76.90.111.117 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a local person who (as mentioned in the article) failed on public access cable and only lasted three months on an AM radio station. He clearly does not meet the notability requirements. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Chen Tao

"However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Chen Tao ("True Way"). Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted.

Greetings Mike, I'm new to editing on wikipedia. In my entry I had no intention to advertise on behalf of the Chen Tao group. We've made an independent film based on their US episode, largely fictionalized. We have played a few festivals and have been written up and reviewed on several press outlets and blogs. Our interest was only to give wikipedia readers knowledge that this film exists. Please advise. Thanks, p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmwallah (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Henstead, Cummersdale, Winscales

I've declined the speedies for them because as far as I know human settlements are considered notable. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Henstead, South Cove, Suffolk and North Cove are reasonable articles based on them being reasonable sized settlements (South Cove's a bit small perhaps, but it's probably just about OK unless I can find somewhere to merge it with), although Henstead might want to move to Henstead and Hulver Street eventually. They were on my list for creation at some point as it happens - hmmm... I'll keep an eye on the user though - might be an old friend back for some more. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Spider 3 issue

I am trying to update the Spiders 3D page, and you keep deleting my content. IMDB has updated its info, and it says American fiction writer Dustin Warburton is credited as a writer on the film, his role was writing the STORY. If you can please update the page accordingly, we here at PBP would appreciate it as our client deserves to be listed as a writer on the page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteatpbp (talk • contribs) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can find no reliable sources that mention Warburton's connection to this film, except for articles where he brings it up himself. The promotional material released for the film at the American Film Market and Cannes do not mention him at all. Until you can provide reliable sources (and the IMDB is not one, in this case), please stop adding his name to the page. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a CONTRACT signed which states Dustin Warburton gets a STORY credit on the film. The production company updated the IMDB page to verify Warburton's credit. Since the film is in Post production, only the production company can add credits to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteatpbp (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
We are managing Warburton's affairs and we have a signed contract verifying Warburton's credit. If need be we will post a portion of the contract on his website if this continued deletion occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteatpbp (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, anyone can add (or remove) credits from the IMDB at any time, unless an article is locked as "listings complete" by a production company. And even then, there's still some leeway given on the part of the editors so far. But what it all comes down to is that no official material released by NuImage or the filmmakers thus far mentions Warburton. Posting a contract on his website would still not be a reliable source, and it would be completely unverifiable. Once the movie comes out with his name on it, or the production company officially releases something with his name on it, DO NOT add it back into the article. Further attempts to do so without reliable sourcing will be removed. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can change info on IMDB, but IMDB sent this message regarding this issue. Contributors Help PER IMDB by Marhleet_DR (Mon Jun 6 2011 12:26:41) "It's in production, someone from the production co would have to put it in as details change (actor/crew wise) and final details change (edit/who DOES get a credit)." Since Spiders is in production, they are the ones that added Mr. Warburton to the current page. He should be added with a story credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteatpbp (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If need be we will cite reliable sources and wait for the official poster and film to release. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteatpbp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Surrey Wildlife Trust

Please could you undo the change that you made to Surrey Wildlife Trust in which the list of reserves was deleted. This list comes from the official website. The listing of reserves under ownership is performed by other Wildlife Trusts, such as Kent Wildlife Trust, Sussex Wildlife Trust and Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust so this is normal.

Thank you for notifying us about Wikipedia policy - we will ensure that further modifications to Surrey Wildlife Trust are not performed using this account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surreywt (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Media Diversity Institute page

I'm confused about who I should raise this issue with - I got an email that indicated you had determined that the MDI article was 'unambiguous advertising' and therefore a candidate for speedy deletion. By the time I had a chance to look, someone else (I think) called Fastily appears to have deleted it.

As a new contributor, I find this all very disheartening, while the procedure for requesting reconsideration seems unbelievably byzantine and virtually impossible to navigate - particular when speedy deletion is concerned.

To the point.

I'd appreciate some guidance as to why you consider the article to be 'unambiguous advertising'. It is an accurate description of the organisation and its work, complete with references where these exist. Moreover, the MDI or MDI projects are referenced in other Wikipedia articles - for example a link in the the article on the International Federation of Journalists references the Institute for Media Diversity (actually the same organisation) and links to a joint IFJ-MDI project, Media 4 Diversity, http://www.media4diversity.eu/.

If you can indicate sections of the article that you conclude are unambiguous advertising, I will be happy to consider rewriting or removing them. But I have been very careful not to include any normative statements in the article. It describes the background to the MDI, its history, its aims and what it does.

I can find no sources for criticism of the organisation but would be happy to include any that you can direct me to.

Finally, it seems to me that there might well have been other more appropriate solutions to the problem (if there is a problem) - for example, reducing the length of the article. There are plenty of similar articles on Wikipedia as far as I can see. I'd appreciate a bit more consideration and some explanation.

Gherman317 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it as Unambiguous advertising or promotion because that's what it appeared to be. Large parts of it were cut and pasted directly from (ar barely rewritten from) a number of pages on the organization's website - it might as well have been an extension of the website. Much of what was there was designed to promote the company, did not appear to be encyclopedic, and it appears that an administrator (who actually deleted it) agreed with that assessment. As to your comments about other pages, I would advise you to look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, are you connected to the organization? If so, you have a conflict of interest and should not be creating articles about them. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I thought changes to Template:X2 were in the Sandbox. I had not meant to be fixing your presumed problems - which I still find mystifying - I was doodling. Aren't I allowed to do this?

Gherman317 (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've worked for the organisation in the past, but then I'm a journalist, it's what I do. I am trying to produce an article that actually describes what this organisation does, because I think it deserves an entry. I appreciate that you may think that it's possible to be completely objective about things, but I believe that Wikipedia actually demonstrates that what you describe as 'encyclopedic' is in fact a negotiated form of truth often emerging from discussions such as this one. You are absolutely right that much of the material in the article was taken from the MDI website - but the point you should be asking (if you'll pardon my presumption) is whether it's accurate or not. I've checked - it is. Unfortunately, the website also happens to be one of the few sources of information about the organisation. But, in my view, any organisation that is quoted by the United Nations is likely to be worth a Wikipedia entry. Perhaps it should have been shorter.

Gherman317 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate muscle

Just letting you know I have removed your CSD A10 from Ultimate muscle. At the time you tagged the page, it had been already been converted to a redirect. I presume you intended to tag the pre-redirect version, as an A10 on a redirect doesn't make much sense. Monty845 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I have no objection to another A10 if the redirect gets overwritten. Monty845 20:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Must have been a cross-post - when I tagged it it was a massive cut-n-paste job from another page... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Her Name Is Murder Productions CSD

I didn't use G4 because the previous version was not deleted as a result of a discussion; it was a CSD... or is that me interpreting G4 too much "to the letter"? StrikerforceTalk Review me! 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her Name Is Murder Productions was in March. It was also deleted yesterday, too. This will be the fourth time, according to the deletion logs. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh, gotcha. I was only aware of the deletion from yesterday. Carry on. LOL StrikerforceTalk Review me! 03:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your attention needed for overuse and improper use of images

Since my focus is contributing content, rather than deleting it, I am not familiar with the procedure for deleting images. In an effort to free Wikipedia of gender bias of content, I will be working from now on flagging content that exhibits a double standard of content - visual, as well as textual. Please examine this Wikipedia entry of John Kennedy Toole for its use of images, as you have done for the Anne Rice and Emily Brontë entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kennedy_Toole Screen shot of request saved.

EncyMind (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

I don't mean to be a bother but could you explain why you think the "List of Open Season characters" is unnecessary? I mean it doesn't matter whether or not an article is necessary, I just created it to be consistent with other animated film articles, such as the Shrek and Ice Age franchises, besides Open Season is a franchise too.

Spicejohnson (talk) 28 June 2011 15:01 (UTC)

Those articles are generally properly referenced, where the characters have some notoriety outside of the franchise. These do not. Taking away the massive amount of original research you add to these articles, there is nothing on that page that really can't be found at Open Season (film series). Also, given your history of adding rumors and outright false information (I've corrected the inaccuracies in the release chart, BTW), I think any potential article about those characters would be better written by someone less involved than you. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Does this count for the film series' template too? Spicejohnson (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you repeatedly recreate something that multiple administrators have deleted as unnecessary, you could be blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

6/28/2011

I didn't had no idea the Open Season template was already created by someone else, this was all of a sudden and a coincidence.--Toyzndahood (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure. How about we let the sockpuppet investigation let us know for certain, m'kay? MikeWazowski (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cease and Desist

For your own good, cease and desist from vandalizing my work and stalking me. You are not qualified on matters literary or cultural. I am awaiting a call back from Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel. Any further trashing of my work, without knowledge or basis for doing so, will be provided as proof of gender bias in the treatment of female editors and content. Remember, I am a lawyer. EncyMind (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And with that, you got blocked. Bye! MikeWazowski (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ard Doko Article

Dear MikeWazowski,

We ( the management of Ard Doko ) got an email stating you want to delete the article of our client. We don't understand why, Ard Doko is an world known artist with a high level of experience. He travels around the world for artshows and graffiti tours. This upcoming year he has 2 art shows in The USA, Illinois and Connecticut and a photoshoot with Monarch Corsetry located in New York. We can send you some articles published in Dutch magazines and Newspapers aswell.

Please let us know why you want to delete the article so we can fix the mistakes.

If you want more info about Ard Doko you can always contact us at pr@arddoko.nl

Kind Regards,

C.Corver, PR worker of Ard Doko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Management5 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey MikeWazowski

I will do the best I can to fix/clean the article I created in editing and etc. Thank you for clearing some things up, I am just trying to understand! Jamesallen2 (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University (2013 film)

Hi,

Im not really sure why you want the Monsters University (2013 film) page to be deleted. Like every other film sequel/prequel on wiki, they all have their own articles. Monsters University is a feature film. And yes, there already is a page for Monsters University. But thats in the Monsters, Inc. page, in the prequel section. It's redirected there. Thats what needs to be fixed. Point being, the Monsters University (2013 film) should not be deleted because the film has its own set of information that needs to be put in its OWN separate article. I really hope that makes sense to you..... (Endrizzi427 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC))

We already have Monsters University. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i see you fixed the link for it leading to its article that i created, instead of going into the prequel section of the monsters, inc. page. Thank you for doing that! therefore, the page Monsters University (2013 film) should be deleted. (Endrizzi427 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC))


Monsters University

I'd like to bring your attention to this discussion where consensus was to redirect. However, I see that the page has been created again, despite little further development. Would appreciate your input on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced?

Dear MikeWazowski, Apparently you put my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Programming_Language) up for deletion because google search on sloan crandell + diamond showed no results. I searched that on google and saw many results (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=3&gs_id=18&xhr=t&q=Diamond+programming+language&qe=RGlh&qesig=Rlbtte6QL2hq9pvAIRw-2A&pkc=AFgZ2tnKmrHJAggbC-Vx-i_s_cqA18yn3HfmQopeogmFfQre_1pYnzvSshuOYW7lZ2m7R5f4ESKZZsZv5m575UqOHwq9rIW8JQ&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Dia&aq=0p&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=951974dc3fe285a2&biw=1024&bih=677)

Is this some kind of mistake?— Preceding unsigned comment added by GruntX117 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, it's not. A Google search on "Sloan Crandell" diamond shows no results outside of the Wikipedia page you created. The search link you posted is useless, as it's too broad to give accurate results. A more accurate one would be a search on "Diamond programming language", which only comes up with 12 unique returns. I stand by my original reasoning - I see nothing about your "Diamond programming language" that's notable enough for an article at this time. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

La Brea Tar Pits

You have something against cultural references? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Mel Blanc in 2011

How is that a test edit? Mel Blanc died in 1989, and your saying its possible that he somehow came back to life in 2011 to voice daffy again? That is not a test edit, that's the truth. Notshane (Talk | Contributions) 19:00, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Read the page, and my edit summary. Blanc will be voicing Daffy in a new cartoon this year. Do not remove the mention again. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD rationale

I declined the CSD on Confederate States Special Operations Command (CSSOCOM). While I did not look closely, I see a substantial section Confederate_States_Special_Operations_Command_(CSSOCOM)#Confederate_States_Signal_Corps which does not appear to have a counterpart in Confederate Secret Service. Perhaps a merger, or merger discussion is appropriate. Do you think I've missed something?--SPhilbrickT 15:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks to have been copied directly from Signal Corps in the American Civil War#Confederate Signal Corps - I'm betting we'll find the entire article is cut'n'pasted from other existing articles... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The name of the article is most certainly an anachronism and no such organization existed. That said, I would recommend AFD for the article. As yet, this user has not been adding citations on any of their contributions and it is time they start. A few of the articles they have created remain unreferenced.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Mike. How are you? Please ignore (Neil Squire Society) this page for the time being, I meant to set it up on my page, not live, so its not ready yet. Birdman604 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a question for you. Are you able to see the article called "Gary Birch" on my page? I need to know how to save it under a different name before making it live as there is already a Gary Birch entry. How do I do this? Birdman604 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Anne Rice

Hi there! With regard to the article on Anne Rice, would you mind if we kept the disputed information out for the next few days, until I've sorted something out? The user who removed the information has emailed the WMF with some private information, and I want to have a chance to get in touch with them and explain the problems with removing sourced material before we re-add it. If you've got any major problems with this, please let me know. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Jkinzler777

Hi can you please explain why you deleted my page again? I was following all the advice of another admin and still you deleted me? I really earnestly am trying to write a good article about an actor comedian who won an emmy. Any advice greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkinzler777 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read WP:FAKEARTICLE, which I have linked to both times I removed the content from your userpage? Your userpage should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Your article has been userfied for you twice now (here and here) - you should be editing on one of those, not your userpage. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike, Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me. I will take your advice, as well as that from discospinster. I wonder will I ever be able to publish this article about a well-known actor and comedian that has won an emmy award? Prior to your deleting it discospinster said I just need to improve the references. thanks again for all you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkinzler777 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Mike, Thank you for you concern.

Sir, this is a 16 year old girl we are talking about. Her accomplishments cannot be put on the internet. And Sir this is middle east so you know there will not be so much popularity in worldwide. I am trying to show that there are hidden talents among us. I have provided a link where she was interviewed by an esteemed Newspaper Times Of Oman. Her Accomplishments listed here are very little. She has a CGPA of 10 in her 10th year of study. So please Sir, and this is my first article so it can have mistakes. She is not a celebrity, but I can guarentee you Sir that all the mentioned ones are real. So please reconsider.

Yours Sincerely, Anoop Teddy2020 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Mouse

According to WikiProject Animation, BCDB is verified source so don't revert my edit again thank you I reported conflict to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation and let them decide what to do with the selection. Until then leave it in. And if you don't know anything about animation in general stay out of such topic in future its better for anyone. Tank youDoctorHver (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And for the final time its not original research. DoctorHver (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If your admin I think its better that you get yourself proper Icons to show it. If your not admin contact on and make him handle warnings on my page.DoctorHver (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I love your reasoning - it's not original research because I don't want it to be. Nice threats, by the way - you do know that admins take a very dim view of editors who exhibit ownership issues and tell others to not edit articles? You'll notice I never told you that, just to find better sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine!

Removed the promotional sorta content. Now its just user general info. Would be fine now. Thanks.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Pixilated Theory

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Pixilated Theory to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Danger (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


Propplan

Hi Mike, Thank you for the links. I'm trying to put up a new article called Propplan. It's like a web graphic editor you see out there. I see quite a number of these graphic editors listed on Wikipedia, so I thought it was alright for me to do the same. I read that if a post got deleted, I can try to "tone down" my voice and make it more neutral. Will you please be kind enough to read and let me know if it is passable now?

Also, my references were included on my first edit, but I don't know how to get the first edit back, so I need to find those references again. Therefore, I haven't published the page just yet.

Thanks for your time and I do not take anything personally. Sincerely, Nongplubplub (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off you should not be doing this on your userpage - that's a clear violation of policy, and you could get blocked if you continue to recreate it there. A better plan would be to work on it in your userspace, such as User:Nongplubplub/Propplan before moving that back to an article when you think it's ready. However, I noticed that Propplan has already been speedy deleted once, so you need to be sure that you have valid references indicating notability and significant coverage - not just existence - otherwise you'll find it probably going down the same path again. Good luck. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarity. Umm... I know this is going to be tough to answer, but how do they measure notability and coverage? Any ideas? Nongplubplub (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Try reading verifiability and notability guidelines for starters. You're looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Man, you must know everything. Just learning Wikipedia syntax is difficult for me. Thanks for the responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nongplubplub (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Nah, just been around a while... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Violin concertos

Hello Mike! You deleted today several links I added to major violin concertos referring to the site of my research project about 20th century violin concertos. The site fulfills serious research and data, is well-known among violinists of international reputation (check the testimonials on the site) and for a long time an external link on the wikipedia sites of "Violin concerto" and "List of violin concertos". Now I added discography data and so wanted to add this information to a few major violin concertos. I cannot understand the difference between the normal "Violin concerto" site and these specific violin concerto sites. Can you please explain the difference?

Thanks in advance and best, Tobias (user: violinconcerto) (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violinconcerto (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello Mike! a nickname is a nickname, nothing more, nothing less - or are you a green running egg with an eye? Therefore your suggestion , my "nickname implies I am more than one person" is a baseless speculation and I summon you to refrain from propagating such personal opinions. If you would be deeper into classical music - which you are definitely not - you would know me and that I am doing this as a single person. So stop this "you are an organization" thing! Second I would like to focus your attention to a few things which you might have overseen and which hopefully show you, that the add of my link is correct: For over 15 years I am doing research strictly on the topic of 20th century violin concertos. I contacted libaries, MICs, performers and composers personally to gather data to this topic. So the compiled database is the largest and most complete resource in the world !! The site is widely known among soloist like Liana Issakadze, which won several violin competitions of international reputation. So my website is a reliable, serious, academic resource! For the Wiki-site we are talking about (the Bartok violin concerto No.2) I would add a link to my site because on my site one can see a complete discography of the concerto. This is an information not provided on the site so far. And it is an information a lot of collector are interested in, which belongs to the whole subject of this specific piece and there are different other Wiki entries which have this topic as well: For example the discography of the violin concerto by Egward Elgar has its own Wiki-site! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgar_Violin_Concerto_discography). Third my site is an external link for several years on other violin concerto related Wiki-sites like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_concerto or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_violin_concertos. As well I am cited a few times for other articles due to the fact that there is no larger and better database than mine for this topic! (see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vangelis_Petsalis website). Therefore where is the difference between adding a linkt o my site on the Bartok article as on the other ones? So finally I cannot understand why you feel you are in the position to undo things I have made just leaving two sentences as an explanation. I am pretty sure you are not really deep into this topic of 20th century violin concertos - otherwise we would have talked in the past and met somewhere in the internet - and so I think its quite arrogant to make decisions whether my site is fine or not, whether I am an organization or not. You expect seriousness from the links added - fine. But then please take a bit more time and study the topic before making decisions.

Best, Tobias (user: violinconcerto) (----)

Had you actually read the messages I left, you would realize that you have a clear conflict of interest in promoting your site, which you sgould not be doing. Any such continued attempts to promote your site by adding links will be removed, as per policy. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


The Shrinking Violets/Shrinking Violets

Hi Mike

I saw you undid the edit i performed on the page The Shrinking Violets. I performed this edit because the band title does not have a 'the' in the title and there were links from other pages such as Phantom Records which were breaking because they correctly cite the band name as 'Shrinking Violets'. What needed to happen (which is what I did, was for the page on 'The Shrinking Violets' to redirect to a new page 'Shrinking Violets' to provide for incoming links from other pages. I inserted the appropriate redirect link to a newly created page so that it all worked.

Can you explain why you took the redirect out and restored the incorrect page??

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidblue01 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Because A) you followed improper procedure in creating a new page as opposed to moving the old one, and B) all the references I found from reliable sources call them "The" Shrinking Violets. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Memphis tags

Hi, I noticed you put the copyright text tags on the Memphis page. I checked the source that the user in 2009 claimed was copied and the article has a few similarities but is not an exact duplicate (In fact the wiki article is greatly different). I was wondering if you checked out the claim like I did. --Turn685 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


Ablaze! (Fanzine)

Hi Mike

I've re-edited the entry on Ablaze! taking into account the notices you placed.

I've removed any 'peacock' terms.

I've done quite a lot more research and beefed up references significantly. This was a bit of a challenge in that pretty much anything published before the days of mass internet tends to be much less referenced than subjects of a similar nature published since the Internet took off as a mass medium. I have however sourced references from a couple of recently published books, and one academic paper I found online.

In terms of being notable, I'd argue that if a self published fanzine from a provincial UK city is still being referenced almost 20 years later in academic literature, then it is notable to some extent. Karren Ablaze! is also cited in the Wikipedia entry on Riot Grrrl - the only non US person to be cited in that article. Some of the other contributors are notable in already having Wikipedia entries.

My motivation for originating the entry, is that I was surprised that there was not already an entry, when there are entries for contemporary US publications such as "Forced Exposure'. Ablaze! was an important and influential fanzine in the context of indie music for the period it existed, both in the US and UK, but particularly in Northern England. It was certainly a very important part of the Leeds music scene at the time - local band the Cribs (from Wakefield, a satellite town of Leeds - were influenced by it. This of course is opinion, which is why I've removed anything I can't find reference for from the entry.

In terms of conflict of interest, I did conduct an interview with Sonic Youth in 1988, but I was not an important contributor to the magazine, and I certainly wouldn't list myself as a notable contributor.

I'm not selling anything.

Regards

Ross Holloway

Rossbushpilot (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Rossbushpilot


Payne & Redemption (2012 film)

Additional significant, independent, reliable references have been included on this page. Payne & Redemption (2012 film)

Sorry, I'm not seeing anything more than blog entries and sites that I would consider questionable reliable sources - that, in addition to the prior AfD I found, led me to go ahead and put it up for AfD again. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Beetlejuice

Oh I thought it was a translation error. Does it mention this anywhere in the article? If not then I am happy to add it. --Johnelwaq (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Padawan Menace & Star Wars TV Specials

Also posted on Star Wars Talk page but since you are the one making the changes I felt it should be mentioned directly to you as well. In a nut shell it is odd to me that a prime time full length in-canon Lucasfilm produced Star Wars special should not be on the template. And further it is odd that non-films are listed as spin-off films. Thank you.

For example The Great Heep was not a spin-off film but a tv special based on the Droids cartoon. The Padawan Menace is virtually the same thing but a spin-off television special of The Clone Wars. It is not a small little short like the previous LEGO Star Wars specials but a full television length tv special. Only the third in the Star Wars franchsie and unlike those small shorts this is made by a major animation house. It is very much warranted inclusion on the template. Jyenor86 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. That template is for in-universe content, which this "special" is not. It does not belong there. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This one is in-universe based on the reported plot. It takes place within the continuity of The Clone Wars 2008 animated series, just in lego form. There is nothing about what is reported that would make it out of universe like the web shorts. And it should not be confused with the webshorts, these are produced by a entirely different animation house. One that does feature files like Happy Feet. Jyenor86 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no way a Lego film can be in-universe. And the animation house has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, when they call something a "standalone" that features "situations, characters and locations from throughout the entire Star Wars saga", that's telling you it's out of continuity. Do not add it back into the template. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed Edd n Eddy: EDventures

Why are you removing that, Stop removing Ed, Edd n Eddy: EDventures. There is a source saying that it's actually happening. GreenGuy2013 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a completely unreliable source. There's no real news mentions of this actually happening. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

HBO/Cinemax

Yes, I don't work for Cinemax/HBO at all. I feel really stupid for choosing the username I have now. I'm just a regular movie buff that subscribed to all movie services. Is there a way that I can change my username? I personally feel that making a new account to "represent myself" isn't necessary, and the fact that sockpuppetry isn't allowed here. MultiCinemaxPak (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Username changes can be requested following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Haynes

Hi there, you reversed a PROD last month on Peter Haynes, with the comment "don't think this is necessary". As he is marked as an unreferenced BLP article, as none of the supplied links can be considered entirely reliable sources, could you please attempt to supply a sufficiently reliable source to prove his notability. Has he ever won or been nominated for a major award? Profiled in a major newspaper/magazine? I just had a quick look and couldn't find anything, so instead of sending him back to AFD, I thought I'd give you a chance first, as I don't know much about reliable sources for webcomics or short film directors. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Knight Communications

Why was this company profile deleted? You had stated that it was due to advertising purposes; however, only factual information was placed on the page, such as the companies earnings last year, the companies industry and the like. there was no advertising of any kind placed on this page.

Could you please explain to me the reasoning?

Thank you Christopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKnight2B (talk • contribs) 08:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Imagine Prep at Coolidge

Here's something that may lend notability: it's a full member of the Arizona Interscholastic Association beginning this year (check: [3]). I've reverted the redirect and the COI revisions. The same user put in the same content as an IP. I'd suggest blocking the COI user instead of reverting. I've been working very hard in the last 8 months to bring AZ schools to a really high completion level, and AIA full members for a variety of reasons are high on the list. Raymie (t • c) 20:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  • P.S. I'm not affiliated with Imagine Schools — or, for that matter, any AZ school except this one. 20:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Moe Aung Yin

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Moe Aung Yin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Danger (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, is your name a reference to Monsters, Inc.? Every time I see your username, a scene from that movie plays in my head and I laugh. Danger (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep - lost an eye when I was a kid, so ol' one-eyed Mike seemed appropriate. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Odd G12

Conor Matthew Mccreedy is identified as a possible copyvio, but the "source" is a document uploaded to Commons. I'm not quite sure what's going on, but this isn't the usual copyvio situation. While I haven't used the print to pdf option, it looks like someone might have printed the WP page as a pdf, then uploaded it to Commons.--SPhilbrickT 17:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around - the page creator has already identified himself on the article talk page as a COI editor acting on behalf of the subject of the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I don't remember seeing that, but maybe I forgot to check. --SPhilbrickT 17:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my userpage

I noticed that you removed its content and cited Wikipedia's fake article guidelines as the reason, and I'd appreciate an explanation. I'm not that experienced on Wikipedia, but I was under the impression that userpages didn't actually have to have veritable content. I was just interested in the infoboxes and decided to mess around a bit, so I used my user page and not an actual article on Wikipedia. Could you please expand on why you deleted it? Thanks. --TheSpoonman (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Hi MikeWazowski. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Conor Matthew Mccreedy, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. The article is not solely promotional and would not require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. If notability is in question, take it to AFD. Ryan Vesey contribs 22:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the template which appeared in this way. I assumed it would have been similar to other Speedy deletion declined templates. Ryan Vesey contribs 22:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In regards to the article, your tagging is a little excessive. First, consider using {{Multiple issues}}. Second, many of the issues you have tagged it with require discussion on the talk page yet you brought nothing up. Finally, consider bringing the article to AFD if you think it is not notable instead of discouraging the editor by slamming the article with tags. Ryan Vesey contribs 03:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You also added a copyright issue template on the page but did not follow any of the instructions for filing. I went ahead and did it for you but in the future please follow all instructions. Ryan Vesey contribs 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
In regards to your comment that I "have it out for that article", it's not personal - however, I've noticed a pattern of promotion, copyright infringements, claims made that the citations do not back up, and dubious references from unreliable sources. Something seems *very* suspicious about that article. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the user brought the issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Sorry for accusing you of "having it out for the article" but I found your repeated tagging with no attempt to improve the article or give information to the author counter productive. Ryan Vesey contribs 19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Veronica Grey Edits

Mike -

I edited the page according to your comments... What more must I do to ensure the page is not deleted? It is NOW completely sourced with the exact information stated contained in the sources. I re wrote it to make it neutral, purely factual and not as an advertisement. It is a legitimate biography as Veronica has published several novels, been in several films and co runs a charity organization that does new age philanthropy. This is described in her article as it is relevant and important.

I addressed all four of your concerns. Please let me know if there is more I must do to keep this page up and running in a legitimate, cooperative and proper manor.

Sincerely, Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.40.52 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Your recent contributions

Hello Mike, you are spot in with the tags I looked at--I've followed you for a bit just now, blocking spam editors and deleting one or two of the articles you nominated for speedy deletion. I did, however, remove the speedy from Jean Dasque--it wasn't wrong, but sometimes it's more fun creating articles than deleting them. I've added a little bit, and if you play around with it some you can easily turn it into a decent article. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Killer Love

I have undone your edit to Killer Love as it appears that you misunderstood the purpose of the credits section. In no way does it promote anyone or anything, rather it is to give credit to all those working on album bar the songwriters and producers. Hundreds of thousands of Single and Album pages including WP:Featured articles and WP:Good articles include them because the credits are an important part of the article. On of the criteria for quality status B and above is a conclusive overview of all aspects of an album including those who've worked with the singer. Albums cannot recieve this without including a credits section. In future do not remove such information (which is sourced) without prior discussion. Also if you are going to make such a drastic change I suggest you also discuss it first. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does appear to do nothing more than promote individuals, and also be a direct copyvio from the album liner notes. It is not Wikipedia's place to "give credit to all those working on album" - they've already received their credit, on the album. Perhaps this needs to be looked at on the other albums, as it seems unnecessarily promotional to me - I've removed content like this many times in the past with nary a peep. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cieluza

I am genuinely trying to do something useful and helpful. Why are you attacking it?  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping the skies bright Chat Me Up 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you genuinely so cold as to immediately try to delete a group for helping people?  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping the skies bright Chat Me Up 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
PLEASE ANSWER ME! I want no trouble. Do I have to get on my knees and beg? please stop targeting Cieluza for deletion! please!  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping the skies bright Chat Me Up 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I only see you creating useless categories and pages. If you disagree, please make your case in the appropriate forums. I won;t be doing any actual deletions - that will be up to administrators to decide after the discussion ends. Also, please try to be civil when communicating with others - calling people "genuinely so cold" ain't helping. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You have not answered my question. WHY????? Why won't you give my group a chance?  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping the skies bright Chat Me Up 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
What part of me answering your question did you not read? Please stop posting these pleas on my talk page, and make your case for inclusion, if you have one, on the appropriate discussion pages. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Confused

I've noticed that you've been deleting many of my edits. My recent contributions to articles have been part of an effort to improve coverage of regional theatre, particularly in the region of Pittsburgh, and I don't understand why you've removed most of my contributions. Although the original productions of plays are the most important information to be included in articles, I believe that because regional theatre is an important cultural force in keeping theatre alive, subsequent regional productions should be listed as much as possible. Please consult with me before you undo more of my edits. I would be happy to discuss with you what should be considered notable in the world of regional theatre, but I would prefer if we could come to an agreement about this before you undo all of my work. I don't mean to sound combative at all, but since I have invested considerable time and energy into contributing a great deal of information on theatre to Wikipedia, I would like to have a discussion before more of my contributions are removed. Thank you! Frankgorshin (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you may need to take a look at the fact that other editors (I'm not the only one) have removed your additions of regional Pittsburgh productions because they simply aren't notable - TheaterXYZ put on a version of a famous play? Not notable. TheaterXYZ put on a show that got significant coverage for something specific? Maybe. Your mass additions of nothing but local productions from a few minor theaters looked like spam, and not only to me. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Well...I do recall two people removing edits of mine in the past, but as I look over my list of contributions, it seems that the majority of my edits have been removed by you. I don't mind if these contributions are removed on a case-by-case basis, but to remove all of them undermines dialogue, which I think is important. In the future, if you wish to remove one of my edits, could you please post that as a suggestion in the "Discussion" area of the article? I do understand that it may seem like I'm "selling" something; I completely understand that point of view. However, my point of view is that I'm revealing a great deal of theatrical activity that already exists that remains unknown to a great deal of the public. Many people are unaware that theatre exists on a high professional level in communities other than New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles; my wish is to increase knowledge of significant cultural activity outside of these specific communities. As Pittsburgh theatre is my "area of expertise," so to speak, I am updating articles from that point of view. I expect others who have knowledge of other theatrical communities to do the same. I have contributed information about theatre companies that are, for the most part, important contributors to Pittsburgh culture. Most of them have existed for many years and represent the way that many notable plays become known throughout the country. Without these kinds of theatres, the cultural cachet of many of these plays would die or become part of only an insular "New York"-based culture. To assert that these theatres are "minor" overlooks the important contributions they make to the fabric of American theatrical culture as a whole, in my opinion. I would not expect Wikipedia articles to list every movie theatre where a film is shown, but because each production of a play has unique qualities and arises out of a culture unique to any other location where it is performed, I would expect the Wikipedia article of a play to list a wide variety of regional productions. I understand that not everyone may agree with that opinion, but I would like to entertain dialogue as much as possible, since my understanding is that Wikipedia operates by consensus. To delete all of the contributions of a single Wikipedian indiscriminately seems to undermine that consensus, if I may respectfully disagree with you. So, like I said, if you disagree with one of my edits in the future, I would appreciate it if you would mention it on the "Discussion" page of the article before you make the deletion, and I will do my best to use the Discussion page more in my subsequent edits. Thank you!

--Frankgorshin (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit war with me. As you'll see in Wikipedia's template for theatre articles, professional productions are acceptable for inclusion into articles about theatre pieces. There is precedent for detailed production histories of plays in Wikipedia articles (see Dark of the Moon, The Room, Camino Real, Copenhagen). I am willing to provide ample evidence of secondary reliable sources for all of the productions I have contributed to Wikipedia articles. I truly hope we can resolve this through discussion and consensus, rather than back-and-forth editing changes. Thank you!--Frankgorshin (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Yasha 7 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

AKnight2B

Hi Mike. Regarding this revert, you might want to re-read WP:REMOVE. It is only while the block is active that the user is barred from removing declined unblock requests. Favonian (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My bad, then - although it's amazing how two restorations became six in his mind. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Just one of several problems with that editor. Right now he is engaged in "admin shopping". Favonian (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Matthew D. Sacks

MikeWazowski, You cite some reasons for deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_D._Sacks, most of which are false or have no evidence to support your claims. For these reasons I have rejected your proposed deletion and changes.

(Added {{advert}} - What about the document specifically sounds like an advertisement. All of the information in this article is factual.

The entire article reads like someone trying to make the case that the person is notable. It reads like a press release, which is advertising, in my opionion. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

{{notability}} - This has already been addressed in the discussion page of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matthew_D._Sacks

It has been addressed by you, but not been discussed - it is just you stating your opinion as if it were Holy Writ. You do not get to decide the notability of the person you created the article about - that is for the community to decide. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

{{primarysources}} - All of the information in this article is factual, none of it is an opinion.

This is not what the template is about - every reference is to something written by Sacks, which is a primary reference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This tag is accurate. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

{{self-published}} None of the cited references are self published. This is false, please do not add erroneous claims to articles, and this is a warning that future erroneous claims will be considered vandalism and forwarded to AIV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Louella romano (talk • contribs)

Again, not a one of the references are from independent publications discussing Sacks, but to articles written by Sacks - therefor this tag was also accurate and placed correctly.MikeWazowski (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
these are not reasons for deletion, they are maintenance tags, and they most defintely apply --[User:MikeWazowski]
I disagree in that these maintenance tags are applicable. I have provided justified reasoning why they do not apply. If you cannot support your decision for applying these tags then they will continue to be rejected. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Louella romano (talk • contribs)

Br3ndan et al

Nice catch. The Br3ndan page was a copy of Chris Brochu. Peridon (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for all of your recent work in quality control. I've been seeing your edits pop up in all the right places! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


Don e stevens

Hiii,Is it possible to undo your edit, and try keeping the article separately. I mean I will not include it in the template Meher Baba Major figures list. I would like to see the article seperatley through see also section in God Speaks or Sufism Reoriented (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)).

I don't see any significant indications of notability on Stevens by himself, so I don't see any need to remove the redirect. The article has already been deleted once, so perhaps you should consider that. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

When compared to Faredoon Driver, Meredith Starr, Naturally there is notability for Don E stevens himself.

Don e stevens travelled many places in the past 10 years and has established many connection in Meher center & Retreats in India.

Most of his works are being purchased and being read by many of meher baba's followers. People are not bothered about merredith star / faredoon driver etc. Don e Stevens is very notable personality among baba lovers. (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)).

I was invited to read this by Dragonbooster4. I replied on my talk page regarding it here [4]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please let me if all the cut and pastes have been removed.on Steve Lieberman article. not sure how to remove template if they were. thanks613codify (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Thank you

Thank you for highlighting the two additional older accounts on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SilviaGrisenti. Your highlighting of those helped me turn up a bunch of others, which I've now added so there is a complete record there. As an aside, I relocated your comments down to the comments by other users section. I hope that is ok? Thank you for your help in figuring out that series of accounts! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cult leader

Hi MikeWazowski, I hope that you agree with some of the arguments presented here by Nemonoman: [5]. The article on Don Stevens will be deleted and I doubt enough material can be found to write one that will stand. But as long as it is there, can you please refrain from adding this "cult leader" about Meher Baba? As said in the arguments by Nemonoman, this can well be added in the right place in the article, if the citations are indeed reliable. But adding it to every single mention of Meher Baba anywhere in Wikipedia is putting an undue emphasis on this one opinion. At least the administrator hopes "that discussion should continue at Talk:Meher Baba on whether to include the phrase in that article." Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 03:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See above. I am undoing your revert, absent some discussion on the discussion page for the article. --Nemonoman (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Moller International

Why did you Delete My Page It was Very well Written I wad trying to help Moller--User:Applejacks1898 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete it, I just tagged it for deletion because you did not write it. It was lifted word for word from the Moller website, and was a copyright violation. Given your past history of creating hoaxes and vandalizing other articles, it was obvious you could not have written that yourself. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I Just Want To Help Moller Please Let it Go --User:Applejacks1898 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of JJ Money Article

Hi, hope everything's well. I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I have been getting a feel of what is required for the creation/editing of Wikipedia articles, although there is still a lot that I am learning. I recently posted an article titled JJ Money which received a speedy deletion nomination, and the page was deleted before I had a chance to know what the issue was with the article.

It was suggested to resolve the issue on your talk page so if there is any way I could get a bit more information as to why exactly the page was deleted, and if there is a way the article can be reposted or improved to meet the Wikipedia standards for article writing it would be great if you could share this information with me or advise me in other ways. Thanks a lot, hope to hear from you soon. Mmwater (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea which article that was. I see a lot of them that get tagged and deleted. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I received a few messages on my talk page, the first one was to welcome me on Wikipedia as a new editor, but it was notifying me that the page was flagged for a speedy deletion. The second message said that the page had been nominated for a speedy deletion and it listed how to go about retrieving the article. Both included a link to your talk page so I guessed that I would have to contact you about the issue. The date that the page was deleted was Aug 8, 2011, but I'm not sure if that information would help you assist me, hopefully it will. Mmwater (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've probably seen hundreds of speedy candidates since then... sorry, but if it was deleted that quickly, there was probably a good reason, but I have no recollection what the article was. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Vandalism on your User page

(talk page stalker)

Hi,

I added a banner to your user page for new users to find their way to your talk page. Hopefully that will help them keep from vandalizing your user page so much. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


FYI

The size of the film industry is not required in Hyderabad Article I did not do any deceptive edits. being an admin dont be so blind. the user omer, included reference about brisbane city, in the statemnt related to size of the film industry I just placed the reference appropriately, but i forgot to mention it in edit page. 

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)).
(talk page stalker) Note that I've reverted Dragonbooster, explained on their talk that the source exactly verifies the claim in the article, that the onus is on them to explain xyr removal of sourced content on talk, and that further reverts on the article without discussion will be treated as edit warring and result in a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


Category:Fan films

I would like to move some of the pages in this category into the subcategories Category:Star Trek fan films or Category:Star Wars fan films as appropriate. This would be consistent with the treatment of pages in Category:Batman fan films. Do you have any objection, as long as I make sure the films are still somewhere within the category tree? Goustien (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Mary Tyler Moore Show contribution and kill

I've been a big contributor to Wikipedia for years and have never had someone interfere with my extremely accurate contributions...until this week when you removed information that I made to the Mary Tyler Moore Show page.

In the early 90's I was an editor at Encore Video (and other major post houses in Hollywood) and worked directly with many people who used to work for MTM Productions, the company that produced all the shows for the company founded by Grant Tinker and mary Tyler Moore. One of the people I worked with was Mark Tinker, the producer son of Grant Tinker. He told me the information that I contributed to the MTM Show page. Mark Tinker was the individual who was part of the management at MTM who ordered the 35mm negatives of the shows destroyed after they had been archived on inferior 3/4" Umatic tapes. Gaining this knowledge from one of the MTM management team (and son of founder Grant Tinker) makes this information extremely reliable (more so than from some magazine article or even some book). Please refrain from acting so quickly when good contributors are only trying to deliver truthful facts to Wikipedia's pages and to the world.

And, how can I KEEP you from deleting this information when I post it once again?

A Very Upset Contributor,

Mark Howell Filmmaker, Journalist, and TV Editor

cc: Wikipedia Management — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howellfilm (talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're a "big contributor" with only 31 edits over three years? Wow - I'm amazed that such a "big contributor" is not familiar with such basic concepts as reliable sources, verifiability, and original research - your edits were contrary to all that. The rules here apply to everyone, including you. Without reliable sources, unreferenced additions can be removed - and I'll hope you'll note that more than one editor has reversed your unreferenced additions. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


Honorary Alumni

Concerning your edit of Don King not being an Honorary Alumni of Central State University. If you were to take the time to search the string "Honorary Alumni Humane Letters" this is the type of link you would find (https://www.vts.edu/ftpimages/95/misc/misc_95974.pdf) and there are hundreds of them. Every university considers those who they award Honorary Degrees as Honorary Alumni. This is an axiom. Moreover, Central State University has paraded Don King in their brochures as being an alumni of the university.

Next, in the Wiki Category, there is no distinction between Actual or Honorary, nor should there be if universities don't distinguish. I fully agree that earning a degree is drastically different than receiving an honorary degree, but the category is NOT called 'People who Earned a Degree from YADA University' or 'People who Graduated from Yada University'. On the contrary, it is called 'People who are Alumni of YADA University'. Again, Honorary Alumni and Alumni, otherwise they would not be called Alumni at all.

Thanks. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


Deletion of my article 'Fidel Castro is Dead'

Hello Mike,

I just discovered that my article is deleted. Am I to understand that notability is no longer an issue? (I did create a talk page).

The explanation for speedy deletion mentioned that the article is an unambiguous self promotion of a self published book. How else do I get this article posted. Do I have to change the language to make it more neutral?

Any indication that you give will be helpful.

Regards,

Pradeep Persaud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinjelly2011 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, without some kind of significant coverage from independent reliable sources, I don't see any way that an article on your book could stay. Self-published books rarely do, without some serious coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


My changes

Mike, My first attempt to post anything on Wiki and I certainly did not intend to leave anything that looked like I was trying to advertise or position us in any leading way, purely stating fact by saying "with a focus on multinational/global business" I updated today and only referred to the countries our firm is currently incorporated in, I trust this meets Wiki guidelines. I do have a question though, how is Newfield IT in the Independent Consultancy Practices when they are owned by Xerox? It would seem to me that if you are looking to keep this page up to date and accurate that Newfield IT should be moved to another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfrancis73 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


Completely factual, you've taken it down again without response or explanation yet left up a non-independent in Newfield IT - refer: http://news.xerox.com/pr/xerox/xerox-acquires-newfield-it-expands-managed-print-services.aspx How is that independent??? My business has been providing brand independent consultancy and managed print services for over 12 years and is incorporated in the locations listed so I feel it is more than reasonable that I can post that in this section that is incomplete. It seems I cannot though as you are treating it like your personal domain and protecting it from others who are involved in this industry. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a shared site where people can learn about topics and potentially learn about what is available to them? Can you at least tell me what your problem is with my post and why you are so entitled to be the ultimate decision maker as to what can go on this page?Bfrancis73 (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to use Wikipedia for your own promotion or advertising. End of story. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


Entry for Benjamin Potter

I'm not sure what's going on, but I've noticed you've been attempting to delete filmmaker Benjamin Potter for some time now, despite his accomplishments in television, new media, and film. Perhaps you're not familiar with the business of film and television, but writers often purposefully attempt to remain clear of interviews, the spotlight, etc. I suspect Benjamin Potter is one of them. Although IMDB is easy to edit, credentials on the site are not and must be legitimately backed up with either a television distributor or film festival/film distributor. This argument applies to writers throughout the industry. In the film business, credentials count for everything. It is clear that Benjamin Potter's credentials are worthy of recognition - 2 TV shows on Sky (the biggest cable supplier in Europe), as well as a series of films that have played at major international film festivals.

I'm going to report these deletions to fellow administrators in hope that it will not repeat itself to other distinguished artists out there who don't have much media attention to cite. Thanks - Batteryparkcity10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batteryparkcity10 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Star In The Hood

Hi there MikeWazowski, I would like to now why it is that you have undone my last edit to the article Star In The Hood and restored direct link and COI tag under the reason "Removing promotional content" when if you had taken a look at Talk:Star In The Hood where I have given my explanation on the previous edits that I had made on the article to Drmies then you would see that I have re-ajusted the edits that I had previously made to make the article more in line with Wikipedia's neutra point of view, that is why I had removed the COI tag after making the re-ajustements to the article. If you thought in any way that my last edit to the article was still un-neutral or promotional like you mentioned when you undone my last edit which I made in good faith to the article [Star In The Hood] you could have easily left me a message on my talk page like what Drmies had done explaning what parts in the 4 paragraphs of the article that you believe that I made on my last edit to the article [Star In The Hood] that was still un-neutral or promotional or both, then I would of happily took your word and re-edit the article to what you in fact find exceptable to be un-promotional and neutral, instead of just totally disrespecting me and undoing my edit and restoring the COI tag, accusing me of being affiliated to [Star In The Hood] clothing company when all I was trying to do hear is create the article [Star In The Hood] which should of been created 2 years ago and put the information that I have gotten from the internet which is clearly stated on the articles sources if you take no more than 1 minute to click on them and have a look for yourself MikeWazowski.
Truex75 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion decliined...and more serious problems

First of all, I declined the speedy deletion of DAR motion pictures, as the article has already been nominated for speedy deletion and already declined by me: they are a film studio which has released several major films in India, clearly making them not only "important or significant" but also notable.

More importantly, I am extremely concerns with what I see on your talk page. First of all, I don't see you responding to any of the admins or others who have contested your speedy deletions--you just keeping plowing ahead, and thus causing people extra work to fix your improper tagging. While its fine to make errors, it's a problem to not acknowledge those errors and attempt to improve.

But an even bigger problem are the several sections I see right above me--your complete lack of response to article editors who have concerns about why their article or content is being nominated for deletion. If you are going to tag someone's work for speedy deletion, you have to be willing to discuss and explain it to them. The vast majority of these people simply don't understand how Wikipedia works, and need someone to explain it to them. Many times they still won't be happy, but they'll feel a lot better than if they're just ignored. Sometimes, they may even be able to help fix the problems. Now, I took a look through your contribution history, and I don't see any comments to any editors, or talk page discussions, or, really, anything other than the tagged and mandatory notification. It's possible I'm missing some places where you have communicated, but at least recently, there hasn't been any communication. I even assume you won't respond to this message. But if you are unable or unwilling to communicate with people who dispute your edits, in my opinion, you need to stop CSD tagging. Refusal to engage with other editors, especially new editors, is, in my opinion, directly and clearly harmful to the encyclopedia, because it drives away, with near certainty, every new editor who gets no response from you. This concerns me so much that if I continue to see these problems, I may raise the issue on WP:ANI or elsewhere, because I think such damage needs to be prevented. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that my not being online to respond to every single item on my talk page is a serious issue, but I don't see it that way... as for the recent comments, Star in the Hood was dealt with on the pages in question, as was Brookfield - my edit summaries clearly spelled out my reasons. Bidzina Kvernadze needed no response, as the prod was quickly replaced with reliable sourcing. I said enough about Clifford Allan Sullivan in the deletion discussion concerning his self-promotion (and in the AfDs on his related projects), and the comment about Benjamin Potter didn't deserve a response, other than my opening a SPI to prove (which it did) that this was yet another sockpuppet of someone who tried to game the system some time ago to create article about himself and his projects trying (and failing) to "scare" me. As for what I nominate for speedy deletion, I think you'll find that the vast majority of the items I do nominate (probably 90%, I'd guess) get removed for valid reasons - I do not nominate things arbitrarily. As for my contributions, you'll find that I've created quite a few articles in my time, and even heavily re-written some in the last few days. Sorry you think this is "damaging", but I don't share that view. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess the problem is that I see you replying only to one out of 6 or seven comments here. I don't think you have to respond to everything (well, actually, I do except for trolling like Behjamin Potter, but that's not a standard held by everyone) but I do think you should be responding more. There's nothing wrong with responding after deletion, either. When I looked at your contributions, I see very few that aren't tagging and notifying. And maybe I'm wrong about your success rate...I was just surprised to see so many declines of your speedy deletion nominations, and no real response to those declines; maybe you do more than I realized, and maybe you are taking to heart the concerns. I, too, have mistagged articles for speedy deletion (in fact, I got criticized for it at my RfA), but I don't see much feedback on the feedback. Your work in keeping WP clear of promotional and non-important junk is important and valuable...I just want to make sure it doesn't come at the consequence of alienating legitimate new editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your regular helpful and useful quality control efforts. They are much appreciated! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Re: Conflict of Interest on page "Gregory Frost"

Thanks for the notification regarding the Wikipedia Page about me, which I made changes to yesterday. Just to confirm, the changes I made to the "Gregory Frost" page involved links to book titles (updating what were haphazardly applied links), Wikipedia links to pages of relevant book and anthology editors named on the page (which previous posters had not forged), and updates on publishing data listed. No conflict of interest as no opinions were expressed.

Best, Gregory Frost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Frost (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


Some baklava for you!

Good day, need your help if you can, for the article Hyderabad, India . please see talk page of the same article or here. Regards. Omer123hussain (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Good day, need your help if you can, for the article Hyderabad, India . please see talk page of the same article or here. Regards. Omer123hussain (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Good day, need your help if you can, for the article Hyderabad, India . please see talk page of the same article or here. Regards. Omer123hussain (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


Paul Gabriel Article

Sorry I forgot to give a subject for the message about the Paul Gabriel article above . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkiel (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

River Nelson

Not understanding why you keep deleting my contribution. River Nelson is a famed global artist in the Hip Hop Community and has sold a multitude of albums. He was signed to Arista Records and is listed in other peoples wiki pages as well as has countless articles online about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.16.144 (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet you have never provided any sources for any of these claims, which is why the article has been deleted every time. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, think i missunderstood, why did page got deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelcardoso (talk • contribs) 22:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paul Banks, Icon in Homer

Hello MikeWazowski, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Paul Banks, Icon in Homer - a page you tagged - because: Article claims he has a school named after him. Thats a claim of notability, and thus fails A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Article now moved to Paul Banks (custodian) which is a sucky name but at least adheres to MoS. Cleanup help would be appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


Ablaze! fanzine

Hey Mike,

Yes Ablaze! was my zine. I could nave used a false name but thought there would be no harm in editing this page - responding to the notes at the top, I tried to remove a bit of the peacockery, correct some typos etc. What would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karren Ablaze! (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Karren. What I would suggest is registering a new username without explicit mention of Ablaze! in it and then taking a look at our guidelines for editors with possible conflicts of interest. You are, of course, always welcome to correct grammar and typos, even if you are connected with the subject of an article and you are also welcome to edit any other articles that might interest you. Danger (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Notice that?

The added, then deleted edits just before mine? I cannot understand a refusal to actually just discuss, using calm reason. --Lexein (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Followup: thank you very much for your assistance. I had just about run out of reverts... so here's a belated tiny amazingly inflatable cookie! I'm optimistic enough to believe that the editor would have eventually discussed, once realizing there was no malintent, so I'm not as certain about the indefinite block. Maybe I'm just in naive mode. --Lexein (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm fine with the block the guy got - you abuse multiple accounts, you get blocked. He knew what he was doing. :) MikeWazowski (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Kirkland's wiki page

Hi Mike! Thank you for helping me edit the Kirkland's, Inc wiki page. I am just trying to get some basic information on here, but still am getting marked as 'not notable.' Do you have any suggestions? Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcharlton (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting a Deleted Page

Hi. I have had a page deleted. This is fine. However, I notice that the page still comes up on Wiki (and in Google search) stating it has been deleted. How do I permanently remove this deleted page? Or if you can do it, would you mind deleting it? Thank you, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyvility (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The page will disappear from Wikipedia's search soon (it usually happens in a few days--the search algorithm always lags behind the encyclopedia by a day or two). As for Google, unfortunately, there is nothing we can do, especially if the page was copied by any of the dozens of sites that automatically copy everything ever added to Wikipedia, or if Google themselves saved a cache of the page. Google's search program is an entirely separate site and organization from ours, and we have no control over what they (or the sites that copy Wikipedia) do. However, if the term is not particularly popular, it should, over time, be replaced with more relevant search terms on Google, hopefully. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of Robert Lugibihl and The Loop Newspaper

I would request that both of these pages remain.

Robert Lugibihl (myself) is a published comic book writer with numerous credits to his name and whose work can be found on Amazon.com (which reference I provided) and many other places.

The Loop Newspaper has been in existence for over a decade and has as much right to appear on Wikipedia as does their competitor, Tehachapi News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlugibihl (talk • contribs) 01:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the AfD nomination of Robert Lugibihl. As for The Loop, I did not delete it, just flagged it. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

aquaknow

Hello, im new to wikipedia and I wrote yesterday an article about Aquaknow. Im a user of this platform and really think it is useful for the cooperation and water community so I thought it was useful to have a description about it. However you sent it for speedy deletion and I would like to know why? Which are the parts which I supposely copied? If they were from the aquaknow website for the description of the web site then I can ask permission maybe to use it, but please tell me what went wrong and how I can improve it. Is it possible to have it back and change it eventually with your reccomendation, if yes how?

Thank you for your time

(Giorgina88 (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgina88 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was an obvious copyright violation, with the text lifted verbatim from another site. This is not allowed. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for answering but with all do respect, I really do not agree or at least do not understand your judgment. I understand that editing is difficult as many things must be published daily on wikipedia. However I think that comments must be constructive and a discussion with me before deleting it would have been much better. You deleted the article so you cannot tell me where I so clearly copied a sentence from another site (can you tell me at least which one? which part that I wrote was apparently copied?). If, as I think you do,refer to copying sentences from the Aquaknow website (which I do not think I did, but it is possible as I took inspiration from their website description and other published articles to explain what it is here on wikipedia) an entry which contains a few copied phrases from individual websites or other sources is not considered copyright violation. But, If I did as you say copied whole entire sentences and paragraphs, although I doubt it but if I did im sorry, can you guide me in asking the aquaknow website for permission to import their text maybe? Or at least give me back my article and I will change it, put it in the sandbox or something until it is fine, if you tell me where I "text lifted verbatim" and from where.

Thank you (Giorgina88 (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

Actually, I did not delete it - only an administrator can do that. I flagged it as a copyvio, and whatever admin actually did the deletion obviously agreed with that rationale. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. As for asking Aquaknow, that's up to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse my being less-than-expert at Wikipedia and Technorati. I see I managed to get my book deleted thereby. But since you still have Robert Johnson and Robert Bly's books on the 'Shadow' page -- who each gave the book glowing recommendations, as did James Hollis, Katie Sanford, and Robert Tompkins -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to delete it. Gaining a better understanding of how the human shadow operates within each one of us is absolutely vital to the survival of the human race. That's all I'm trying to do: promote a better understanding of the human shadow. For confirmation of that, blurbs from experts, and further information about me and my book, please visit www.shadowintheusa.com, or email me at worldviewpress@gmail.com. I'd be happy to work with you to get articles onto Wikipedia which would help promote a better understanding of the human shadow. KP Kay Plumb (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Left Right Think-Tank deletion

I strongly contest the deletion of the page for Left Right Think Tank - it is a prominent and productive organisation in Australia public policy and youth affairs, having submitted reports to Federal Parliament, sent a delegate to Tax Forum, been profiled by various newspapers, been supported by major figures in Australian public affairs, from the Minister for Youth to various MPs. Thus, it has more than sufficient merit to warrant a page. - User:EntropicPonderer. —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

I should have CSDed this as a recreation - I did not realize it had been deleted once already. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Arkadiy Abramovich

Hi Mike,

I was wondering if you might be able to help me/suggest how I improve my article to make it legitimate/worthy of being on the site.

I am a noob to this, but have tried in all honesty to upload this article in good faith and in a neutral manner.

Do you not think that Arkadiy Abramovich merits a Wikipedia entry? He is the son of one of the most famous and wealthy individuals in the world, and a business man in his own right.

I hope that you can help me and do not just delete this article.

Many thanks,

Charlie Charlesstewart99 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited - he doesn't appear to have done anything notable on his own. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to contest your argument that the phrase relating to Roman Abramovich and his ownership of Chelsea is misleading - it follows the rules of English, with the sentence broken into two parts separated by a comma. The second part of the sentence clearly refers to Roman Abramovich, not Arkadiy.
Is your opinion that his company is not notable sufficient to for this to be a reason not to approve the article? Part of the reason for creating this article is to allow members of the business community access to more information about an individual who is gaining notoriety already, and who's influence within the financial world is only set to grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesstewart99 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I said that both he and his company are not notable on their own because the facts appear to back that up. A Google news search shows zero recent news results, and only 19 in the archive. His name is NOT one of the most famous in the world, as you tried to claim on the article's talk page. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Jonathan D. George article

Mike, I welcome your help. I am confused that my article on General George would be marked for deletion. As a template I used the wiki page on Lt Gen Robert Elder. Gen Elder's page has been in place for some time and is principally drawn from his US Air Force official biography as is the case with General George's. Gen George's bio, as that of Gen Elder or any other military officer is not copyrighted material and therefore should be permissible. In a quick search I located numerous other wiki pages in which military bios had been used in the same fashion.

Further, prior to starting this wiki, I contacted Gen George and he gave me his full blessing.

How can we best resolve this so that my initial page stays in place and can be improved upon.

Thank you, Chris Chris Wrenn 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswrenn50 (talk • contribs)

The article was blatantly copied from the Air Force biography page. Write an article in your own words, and don't rip content from other sites. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Except that US government works are, with rare exceptions, in the public domain. Thus, there is no copyright violation. The source still needs to be attributed, and there's a specific template for that, which I'll add to the article once I find it. However, I have declined the speedy deletion under these grounds. I think the article also meets A7, though I don't know if it actually meets WP:BIO. While we don't have a separate notability guideline for military personnel, there is an essay made by Wikiproject Military History, which you can read at WP:MILMG. You're welcome to review it and see if the article should go to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Matus Valent Biography

Dear Mike:

This is Attorney Russell Sampson (eisbar1) and Matus Valent is my client. Your deleting my article updating his biography was undeserved. Matus himself wrote the piece that was published by Books LLC in "Slovak Models" and they used it with HIS permission. HE OWNS THE COPYRIGHT and it has been published previously on his personal website, his bodybuilding.com page, and numerous other places online. Please restore my article immediately. I only referenced it as an example of a previously published article.

Thank you, Russell E. Sampson, Jr., Esq.

````eisbar1 4:52PM EST October 11, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eisbar1 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, nor can I restore it. From your talk page, it appears you've had this deleted multiple times under multiple titles - perhaps you should read up on Wikipedia's copyright policies before proceeding. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps this needs a fuller explanation. The material was deleted by the administrator Fastily at MikeWazowski's suggestion. It was deleted, and very properly so, for being a copy of his website. It is possible for rights to the material material to be explicitly licensed according to our licensing, using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials; be aware that these licenses give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. All the formalities must be followed exactly.
But I very strongly do not advise that you do so. Examining the material, which I can do as an administrator myself, the material was highly promotional, and not capable of being used with fundamental rewriting, It consequently falls under our speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G11. andfd I or any other administrator would unhesitatingly delete it as such.
A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. It also needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release, in an appropriate format. When you copy from a web site, even your own -- even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will almost inevitably not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.
A suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not utterly impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's very much more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity. The advice we give in such cases is, that if the subject is notable, someone else will write a proper article. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
If I can help you further, let me know on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A9

I have removed the speedy deletion tag from I am not Road -- It does not qualify for speedy deletion, because the artist has a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:CSD#A9. For actual notability of the article, see WP:MUSIC; if you think it does not fulfill the requirements, list it for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Odd - it didn't have one before... and the artist's article now appears to be blanked as a copyvio, so it probably won't be there long... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You tagged the EP for speedy deletion at 19:20 11 October. The artist article was created at 16:56 11 October.
New page patrol is important and often difficult work, and I appreciate that you are taking time to participate in that way. But it's very important that you do this job carefully. Aside from a few urgent matters (attack pages, copyvios), speedy deletion is not generally urgently required. If something is borderline or doesn't completely fit the criteria, it is worth taking time to explore it further to avoid unnecessarily biting other contributors, especially newcomers. It's also really important to talk to them about why their articles were problems or what they can do to fix them. We're having a bit of trouble at the moment with building our editor base, and one of the best services that we can offer to Wikipedia is helping to guide these would-be new editors into constructive contributions.
A couple of years ago, I dealt as an administrator with a new user who was having problems with our copyright policies. It took many hours to work with him through those issues, as for a while content he was contributing was just too close for us to retain. But that time was very well spent. Not only did we get a good article out of it (literally, it went on to pass GA within a few weeks of creation), but he has gone on to produce other good and featured content and to integrate fully with the community. When I get discouraged with having to tell people the same things over and over again, I think of him and people like him. :) They keep me going.
Again, the work that you're doing is very important, and I'm glad that you're doing it. But please be very careful with it. New page patrol is quite a responsibility. It is a valuable service in protecting the project against inappropriate content, but perhaps even more influentially it is the first line opportunity to usher in new community members. New page patrollers are often the first "faces" these new people will see, and whatever the outcome of their article we want to leave the public with good feelings about Wikipedia. We need them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


Being There ending

Hi, I'm a noob at this so bear with me.

The description of the movie's ending: "Rand's quote "Life is a state of mind" is superimposed in the background." is rather confusing. Superimposed where? There is a voiceover of the President saying those same words as Chauncey is walking on the water. This is what I was attempting to describe. Dlgarbern (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Syfy.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Syfy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Crashlytics

I submitted a first cut for Crashlytics page, which was covered by several publications a few days ago. I haven't updated it fully with info but it is venture backed. I intended to fill in more info when time permits. This should make it more relevant, however a quick google search or news search should confirm the relevance and significance. Let me know if this will suffice - I do believe it is relevant. BlueImpact (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already deleted this a second time and given a thorough explanation on the user's talk page; no need to worry about responding here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Barney Vandal

Mike, I saw you reverted a number of User:165.155.204.121's edits to Barney related articles. If you spot him again on a new IP, feel free to let me know on my talk page--this person is clearly not interested in actually discussing things, or stopping their dubious (vandalism?) edits. For now, we can play whack-a-mole and block the editor on each new IP address, but, if necessary, we can also consider semi-protection on a wide swath of articles or possibly an edit filter. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do - semi-protection's probably the way to go... MikeWazowski (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Michael Gordin Shore

Hi Mr Wazowski, I appreciate your advice yesterday on how I can change the article on Michael Gordin Shore to fit the requirements of Wikipedia, and I believe I have made the adjustments you requested. I've shortened it from 15 pages down to 3 short paragraphs which are written, i believe, in objective language that is entirely fact based and verifiable.

At your suggestion, I've eliminated any reference to Mr Shore's acting system other than to state that it exists and that he created it, and that sentence can be eliminated if you tell me it has to go. I've used no descriptors besides quotes from newspapers, and I am happy to send you the .pdf's of those newspapers, which are from before the internet existed. The one article that is recent enough that it actually is easy to find online, I added to the list of external links, so although you did not find a result when you googled "one of canada's most appreciated acting teachers" or "An audition Coach Par Excelence" with Michael Gordin Shore, I've remedied that by attaching the link to the newspaper's archives so that the article can be read and verified by anyone. Although the Canadian Jewish News is not The New York Times, and yes it is an ethnic paper, it is distributed across Canada, and is a National newspaper. The Suburban, although it is a community newspaper, is according to Wikipedia, the largest english language weekly newspaper in Quebec, which is a very large province, almost half the size of the USA.

Also, although Mr Shore is not extremely famous, a close look at his IMDB page will verify that in two of his credits, Last Day and Blindspot, Mr Shore was the lead actor of the movie. Also, in a third credit, although his Time of your Life credit is listed as only being in the pilot, Michael was one of the regular characters on the show and is listed on their IMDB site as one of the leads of the series. If you click the Time of your Life link on Mr Shore's IMDB page you can verify that.

If the objection to this article is the first paragraph which includes the quotes, it can be removed completely without deleting the entire article. My hope and intention is not to hawk anything, it is merely to provide information on a public figure who may not be huge, but is clearly in the public eye.

For comparison please look at the wiki page for Conrad Pla. Mr Pla has also had a regular part in a canadian series and a number of other mid sized credits, but he does not have a single lead role on his resume, and Mr Shore has many. Here is Mr Pla's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Pla

Please do not delete the Michael Gordin Shore page outright. If I've provided you with enough reason to leave it the way it is then thank you very much, if you tell me i have to take out the first paragraph completely to make it acceptable then i'll do so.

Please let me know your thoughts, Michael Risk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixxter1 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


proposed deletion of Michael Gordin Shore - please reconsider deletion based on changes you suggested

Hi Mr Wazowski, I posted this on your wall but I think this is the appropriate way to message you.

I appreciate your advice yesterday on how I can change the article on Michael Gordin Shore to fit the requirements of Wikipedia, and I believe I have made the adjustments you requested, and if there are further changes you suggest i'll make them, so please reconsider deletion of the article.

I've shortened it from 15 pages down to the 3 short paragraphs you suggested, which are written, i believe, in objective language that is entirely fact based and verifiable. Nevertheless, i'm happy still to make any additional changes you suggest, and I've eliminated the second article on Mr Shore's Actor Training System completely.

At your suggestion, I've completely eliminated any reference to Mr Shore's acting system in this article other than to state that it exists and that he created it, and that sentence can be eliminated if you tell me it has to go. I've used no descriptors besides quotes from newspapers, and I am happy to send you the .pdf's of those newspapers, which are from the late 1980's and early 1990's before the internet existed. The one article that is recent enough that it actually is easy to find online, I added to the list of external links, so although you did not find a result when you googled "one of canada's most appreciated acting teachers" or "An audition Coach Par Excellence" with Michael Gordin Shore, I've remedied that by attaching the external link to the newspaper's archives so that the article can be read and verified by anyone. Although the Canadian Jewish News is not The New York Times, and yes it is an ethnic paper, it is distributed across Canada, and is a National newspaper. The Suburban, the source of the other two quotes in the first short paragraph, is a community newspaper, but it also is, is according to Wikipedia, the largest english language weekly newspaper in Quebec, which is a very large province, almost half the size of the USA. Both of these are credible and established newspapers and have long histories, they are not local irrelevant newspapers. here is the link to the article that contains the quotes "One of Canada's Most Appreciated Acting Teachers" and "An Audition Coach Par Excellence", the only way to see it is to look at the link to the newspaper and scroll to page 34. I didn't make it up, i read it in the newspaper. http://www.cjnews.com/images/stories/eCJN/09_29_10_MTL.pdf

Also, although Mr Shore is not extremely famous, a close look at his IMDB page will verify that in two of his independent movie credits, Last Day and Blindspot, Mr Shore was the lead actor of the movie. Also, there's a third credit; although his televfision show Time of your Life credit is listed as only being in the pilot, Michael was one of the regular characters on the show and is listed on their IMDB site as one of the leads of the series. If you click the Time of your Life link on Mr Shore's IMDB page you can verify that. Actually, i'll make it easier, i'll give you the links to the three projects here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396385/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0877342/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497501/

If the objection to this article is the first paragraph which includes the newspaper quotes, it can be removed completely without deleting the entire article. My hope and intention is not to hawk anything on behalf of anyone, it is merely to provide information on a public figure who may not be huge, but is clearly in the public eye.

For comparison please look at the wiki page for Conrad Pla. Mr Pla is mostly famous for having had a regular part in a canadian television series and a number of other mid sized credits, but he does not have a single lead role on his resume other than in a single independent film, and Mr Shore has three and one of those is a TV series. Here is Mr Pla's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Pla

Please do not delete the Michael Gordin Shore page outright. If I've provided you with enough reason to leave it the way it is then thank you very much, if you tell me i have to take out the first paragraph completely or make any other changes to make it acceptable to your standards then i'll do so.

Please let me know your thoughts, Michael Risk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixxter1 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixxter1 (talk • contribs)

My Article

I noticed you requested that my page be deleted. I was wondering what you found to be wrong with it? I do not intend to be mean at all :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossfirefarm (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a blatant ad for your horse, which doesn't appear to be notable. Why is this horse important enough for an article? MikeWazowski (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome name

Hey Mike Wazowski,

Nothing at all to do with any Wikipedia content, but I just wanted to say that I really like your username. I just saw you on my watchlist, and I thought it was hilarious! Well done sir in the picking of your name, I think if all the memorable moments in Monsters Inc associated with someone (mostly Boo) saying "Mike Wazowski!" So yeah its awesome.

And I'm sure you remembered to file your paperwork... for once. Your stunned silence is verrrry reassuring.... :D

Jessemv (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


Bruce Almighty

What do you mean "not really"?! Are you seriously denying that the film revolves around religion? If Evan Almighty is known as a religious film on it's article, then so should Bruce Almighty. Personally, don't think either of them should be referred to as a religious comedy. But whatever. Take my point. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC) (Please respond on my talk page)

It's not a religious comedy, any more than Oh God! is - it uses God as a plot device, but not the religion. When you grow up, you'll understand the difference. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Bruce Almighty isn't a religious comedy, than why is Evan Almighty a religious comedy? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Norwegian Multilingual efforts and contributions on Henrik Ibsen from the WIkipedia.

Dear Mr. Mike Wazowski, I do find it quite sensational that our project on the Multilingual Ibsen (http://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=library&bid=10) has been styled spam by you, and by whom I might not know, working to stop such internet resources as ours.

This is to say that I, as a professor at Oslo University, The Department of Cultural Studies and Oriental languages, lead a project funded by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Ibsen Centre at Oslo University, to produce a Multilingual Ibsen reading, searching and documenting internet page, where you can now find all Ibsen’s Plays in Norwegian and quite a number of other languages in a multilingual environment, line by line and in a synoptic format.

The page is not yet complete, with all languages intended, but if you would care to have a look at the page, you can see which languages are extant. I of course also would be pleased if this would start off your interest in Ibsen, but I cannot but expect the Wikipedia (which I like very much) to take our links in, and also to accept our attempts to document our activities on the Wikipedia. Why you call it spam is absolutely beyond my episthemic abilities to understand.

Fredrik Liland is my assistent in this work, and has done most of the inputs, and is a really honest and hardworking person.

Seriously wondering, and puzzeled by the Wkipedia policies, Jens Braarvig, Professor, Dr. Philos., Member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Director of the Norwegian Institute of Palaeography and Historical Philology.

PS.: If you doubt my credentials, do contact Oslo University to autheticate. Some would call your actions an insult to people doing their best and using their free time to make resources of high quality and open access on the net. I would be very happy to have your reply on this, my e-mail address is j.e.braarvig@ikos.uio.no, and please also send a copy to Fredrik Liland fredrikliland@gmail.com.

That you now also try to block us from putting links on our own page is outrageous!! Where is there justice in the world? I have so much believed in the Wiki idea, but after this I am just flabbergasted. I have to stop now, endangering myself for using to strong language. But please explain to me what is going on.

So, in other words, you admit your assistant has a conflict of interest on the issue, and came here directly to promote your work - something against wikipedia policies, I should add. Perhaps you should read up on the relevant guidelines, like this one before you call what I did "insulting". MikeWazowski (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ibsen

I cannot see that there is any self-promotion of anybody in this case, the Multilingual Ibsen, (and the BP) is a collective work with a number of participants not only in Norway but also internationally. It is a promotion of Ibsen’s work, if anything like that, and it is definitely an activity supported by many here at the University of Oslo. It is quite natural to connect it to the Wikipedia, since it is a very easy way to connect with Ibsen (and some other multilingual) resources on the net. It is also a promotion of all people and researchers interested in the material on the page, and to say that it is a promotion of ourselves is wrong. The BP is linked also elsewhere on pages with similar activities, as http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/content/polyglotta and http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb/ under the name Thesaurus Literaturae Buddhicae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.127.227 (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add my name to my last comment called “Ibsen”. Hereby it is signed. Jens Braarvig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.163.145 (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mellanox

Did you see this, before nominating the article for speedy deletion? I suggest you reconsider. Jeff Song (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a good-faith tag by Mike, but I've declined the speedy since the concerns raised in that AFD have been addressed. The article no longer meets speedy deletion criteria and so a new AFD would be necessary if it were to be deleted. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Second Front (Digital Performance Group)

This article was created for a University assessment that was due to be assessed on Tuesday 1st and wednesday 2nd of November. Is there any possibility that you could please reconsider the deletion until after these dates?? After these dates, we do not have any problem if the article is deleted. --TimoWardX21 (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, I didn't delete it, I just tagged it for deletion. An administrator deleted it because there were no credible claims of notability, nor was there any sourcing outside the groups own website and blogs. Whether it's for a class or not, all articles must conform to the standards for notability and reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Entry for Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver

Your rapid deletion of this brief and carefully worded description is disappointing. The two dominant civic parties in Vancouver each have far more extensive, and possibly more dubious, entries in Wikipedia. Vision Vancouver cites only its own promo site. NPA cites only one masters thesis. There is also an entry for Coalition of Progressive Electors (which is running *fewer* candidates in the 2011 municipal election than NSV is) with 3 weak references. NSV linked to its official site rather than producing it as a "reference." Was that the only problem? If NSV needs citations, many recent news articles can be given as links. For example, <http://www.straight.com/article-492391/vancouver/watchdog-runs-mayor>.

Normal encyclopedias have a consistency of entries and provide a level field of information. You should either allow NSV an entry, or delete Vancouver's other civic parties (more than just those big three, by the ay) – and then vigilantly keep them out?

So: What do I do now after having invested a lot of scarce time in learning your basic protocol and writing the entry, and then seen my effort lost without a sufficient period of notice to do anything about it? Should I have to acquire an advanced competence in Wikipediology to make a simple contribution?

Alephtav (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My new wikipedia page:

In response to your comments on my new page: if someone searches for High Touch Jin Shin, the wikipedia page for "High Touch" says it is "Redirecting" readers to Jin Shin Do, which is not High Touch. As this information is in error, I was attempting to straighten that out. It is incorrect that readers searching the internet for High Touch or High Touch Jin Shin should be redirected to Jin Shin Do, which is not the same thing. Given your comments on my new page, can you suggest how I can re-write the High Touch page so it is not an "advertisement?" Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betsy Ruth Dayton (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, you should not be re-writing it at all. According to your user page, you are the "Founder and Director of the High Touch Network", which means you have a massive conflict of interest here - if the subject is notable, an uninvolved editor would be the one to make such changes. What you added was blatant adverting, which is not allowed. Also, your blanking of High touch to remove the redirect is borderline vandalism - do not do so again. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Iranica-Chan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iranica-Chan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranica-Chan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Carol Buckley

Hey, could you please comment on Talk:Carol Buckley. You tagged this page as a copyright violation, but there is some confusion about it. Yoenit (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I am sorry for creating the article on [The Road Less Travelled] as i did not know about these guidelines. I will definitely be more careful the next time. However, will it be okay if i delete the part on the story's plot as the other information are provided in the trailer, such as the cast. I hope you can answer my doubts. :) Thank you so much and sorry once again! VanNessWu's (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) still thinking of changing a name.

Mahadeva Iyer Ganapati

I am writing the article on Mahadeva Iyer Ganapati, who was an eminent Indian engineer. I can confirm that M. Ganapati is deceased because I am actually his grandson. There are obituary articles in newspapers but unfortunately these are not online. Would it suffice to add a reference to an obituary in a newspaper?

I might add that in this case Wikipedia would be getting an article that is not available anywhere online to date. I have collected many documents of his life and work, and it would be special interest to historians of engineering.

Regards,

Gana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gn203a (talk • contribs) 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Russell Reynolds Associates

Dear Mike,

I tried to add a company addition for Russell Reynolds Associates but it was deleted at 19:59, 31 October 2011 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) deleted "Russell Reynolds Associates" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The article clearly indicated its importance by stating it is a top 5 global executive search firm. The description was a shorter version of another global top 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidrick_%26_Struggles. Please re-post the page or give me specifics as to what it is missing.


The Wikipedia page "User talk:Christianpielow" has been created on 31 October 2011 by MikeWazowski, with the edit summary: Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Russell Reynolds Associates. (TW)

Best, Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianpielow (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Theatron

Unfortunately, this was the tip of an iceberg... (I've left my £0.02 here. SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh my - that's a whole mess... MikeWazowski (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alan McCurdy

You keep marking it yet i have a perfect source showing its an important person... Mark it again and ill report it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One IMDB credit does not make someone an "important person"... MikeWazowski (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Look at all the movies he was involved in you ignorant bafoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have looked, and something stinks to high heaven - if he was born in 1980, the IMDB page would have had his first production assistant credit at age 6 - no way, says this "bafoon". Remove the tag again and I'll take it to AfD, where it will be deleted. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok take it there. There is a thing called a typo, get a clue. Hes not an important person because why? You cant just change your topic and not give a reason why.(EaglesX63 (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

AFD

I have created an AFD on an article you have participated in, Alan McCurdy if you would care to participate further in the conversation. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Article copied

This article M.I.B (band) is a exact copy of the one I wrote (M.I.B (South Korean group)). I think he just copy and pasted then changed a few words. If you look at it closely. I think User:AsianManFreddie didn't look to see if there was one already written and found it later then copied it. 제이2케이엑스 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Deleted it now, then I'm going to move your (Jay2kx's) page over the other name, as (band) is the standard term used, with more specifics necessary only if there are multiple musical groups with the same name. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a prob... :) MikeWazowski (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WQED programs

why did you redirect it to the KQED site? The article subject is significant. If you cold explain t to me Id appreciate it. Thank you Mike. --JRcappel (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Because you have not shown that they are significant. You've also created multiple articles for the same program, which is unnecessary. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. i gt confused and wasnt sure they were saved. my apologies.--JRcappel (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Review speedy deletion

Hi Mike, I've improved the article netsniff-ng. Can you please review and remove the speedy deletion request? Thanks and sorry for the trouble. Foob44r (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • As a side observer here, if it was truly a copy vio, then it will probably get deleted since the copy vio would still exist in the history. I would suggest copying the current content (assuming it isn't violating copyright) into your sandbox, then recreating it, and then on that talk page, making it CLEAR that this content is not the same as the original copyright infringing stuff. I was going to remove the tag myself until I saw why it was tagged. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Now you wait for it to be deleted, then recreate it BUT make sure you explain that the new article is NOT a copyvio like the first one was. This way any admin understands that YOU understand. Of course, the article still has to stand on its own. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Foob44r (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Award "Entrepreneur of the Year"

Hi, Mike, I've corrected the article. Please leave the article. Thanks.--WestOstWind (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Cubs

Please discuss any further reverts you made to the Chicago Cubs. You are starting an edit war about something that has been discussed and has come to consensus already. You are more than welcome to discuss why you have "VALID" reasons, if you do not have any and is just starting an edit war. Get lost. PositivelyJordan (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, I've warned PositivelyJordan about edit warring to add info to your talk page. However, it looks to me like there is a pretty clear consensus right now on Chicago Cubs (3 to 0, or 3-1 if you count yourself) to include that information. You yourself have not engaged in talk page discussion, and that is a serious problem. Please stop edit warring to remove that info, and discuss it on talk. If you can't reach a satisfactory conclusion among yourselves, try dispute resolution; I recommend that a first obvious step is go to WT:MLB#Chicago Cubs Alert:Page was fully protected. Need and see if there is a wider consensus among Baseball editors (which would usually override the local opinions on just a single franchise article). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I've ended up just making any inclination to edit war be moot by fully protecting the article. This does not obviate the fact that you need to enter into discussions there or at some centralized location. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

original research

Hey Mike, I am trying to post this article, which had been on this page for a couple years. It is original academic research by me, completed while at the University of Toronto. Why is it ineligible to be included? It is a positive article and makes a contibution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwlehman (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As I posted on your talk page, you're basing your edits on an unpublished paper apparently written by you - an author of no apparent credibility or notability, and the paper appears to fail WP:RS and the guidelines at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Given that your account appears to have only one purpose in adding that link, it comes across as promotional. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote your own works. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Simplified American Cage Combat

Hi i am a student Of GM Ed Kinner, it seems you may have marked an article on a form he created for deletion! Simplified American Cage Combat! We his students have tried 3 times to make this page to no avail! can you shed some light on to why it keeps getting deleted! we are not writers we are martial artist, the creation of the art can be verified! please help us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.254.244 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

why was our page deleted! 2 years we have been trying to put this in this web site and it gets deleted! instead of deleting it you could have emailed us and told us what we were doing wrong! we are martial artist not english teachers! I want an answer! i am the type of person to bring this to national attention! My art form has won numerous martial arts competitions and i have legal certification that says its a real martial art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardkinner (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the deletion logs, [Simplified American Cage Combat]] was only created once, and only deleted once. If you've created it multiple times under different names and it keeps getting deleted, then perhaps you might want to consider WHY that is. As I had no input in any prior deletions, if they really happened, I can't comment on those. Also, when I tagged it for being promotional (an assessment the deleting administrator apparently agreed with), that process did post a message to the creator of the page. Also, if you really are Edward Kinner, please read the conflict of interest guidelines about why you should not be writing articles about yourself. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

George Lucas, Nina Foch and Randal Kleiser

Hi Mike! I'm working for Randal Kleiser production and we want to add some new informations to George Lucas, Randal Kleiser and Nina Foch. M. Kleiser and his crew are working on his new production called: The Nina Foch Project. You can see it on the website www.ninafochproject.com Please, let me add our new information, it is very important for M. Kleiser. Please, tell me if you really need any proof or something that can let you know that this is a real project.

P.S You can even see on IMDB for all these people that they worked in the Nina Foch Project.

Magaly Moreno for RKProd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkprod (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Magaly - please read the conflict of interest guidelines - as a paid representative of Kleiser, you should not be writing articles about your employer or his projects. If these productions are actually notable, impartial uninvolved editors will eventually get around to it, hopefully with reliable sources independent of Kleiser. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sevonica

Mike - please see the Talk:Sevonica. I feel this article is well written and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbabin1978 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am working on a wiki project called DEWFIX. It appears you have been helping me by removing hidden text and unreferenced sections. THANK YOU. Best wishes! ImhotepBallZ —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

Red Foundry

The article has been fixed enough to assert notability, and had reliable sources. Take a look at it now. Send it to WP:AfD if you must. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Note - another admin has flagged this for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional - I feel justified in my original edit. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nate Doss Article

You had recently deleted the Nate Doss article I was working on. I was working on it and hit the Save Page button by mistake instead of the Preview Page button. I assure you that I had a lot more information to put on the article. Not only is Nate Doss the top disc golfer in the world right now, but he has won more world's titles than anyone else save Ken Climo. I addition to winning three world championships, he has won nearly every other prestigious tournament on earth. The story of Nate Doss is inspiring to many young people. Is there any chance this action could be reversed?

Thanks, Jaywm Jaywm (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically, I didn't delete anything, I just tagged the article. You need to take it up with the deleting administrator. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


Hey Mike, I assume you tagged for Inspirato deletion this due to notability concerns. I have submitted a contested deletion [[6]] just so you know.

If you have suggestions to enhance notability (or decrease promotional language) within the article that would be of great. I am familiar with the notablilty guidelines, and I believe Inspirato should be reconsidered due to it's size, # of locations, partnerships (especially w/ several Wikipedia 'notable' organizations).

Feel free to leave anything here on my talk page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgump910 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Arte Libertino Magazine

I removed the speedy deletion templates again from this artcle. The speedy was declined by admin User:Mikaey. Vrenator talk 16:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted on Mikaey's talk page? The page is a massive copyvio/fraud. Speedy's the right path for it, but I'll take it to AfD, which will only result in the same thing. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
yes I did and I also read your talk pages where you were requested to lay off NPP for a bit. Continuing to replace the templates looks to me like edit-warring. Maybe AFD is the right way to go. Vrenator talk 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. AfD it is - even though this one is blindingly obvious. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi Mike! I've run across you a few times in the AfD area and I know that you're pretty active on here in general. I just wanted to let you know about something that's going on with one of the AfD articles. There's a professor on Wikipedia (User:ToniSant) who is telling his students to create Wikipedia pages for a project as well as to add on to various pages. I've noticed that you've had to revert a few of the pages, so I thought I'd let you know what is going on with all of this. I know that there's nothing against the rules as far as professors assigning students page creation for a student project, but this professor is having his students recreate pages that were deleted in prior semesters. (The pages were made by prior students and deleted in the AfD process.) I'm not trying to form an attack, I just wanted to get a few admins to look at this and see if I'm just being overly sensitive (ie, overreacting) or if this is something that you need to get involved with. I did leave a message for the professor stating that this might not be the most beneficial way to do this and leaving suggestions for other ways to do similar things (such as starting their own Wikia site or going through AfC) and they haven't had a chance yet to say anything in return, but I just wanted to drop a note to an admin and let them know what is going on. There's nothing against making pages for grades in Wikipedia rules per se, but it's something that I just feel isn't really all that right. I noticed all of this after a page was put up for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Performance (2nd nomination)) and one of the students commented that it was done for a student project per her professor. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

  • I noticed that there is actually a lot of professors who do this type of project, but this one particular instance just feels like it's going against some of the goals of the Wikipedia:School and university projects. 10:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Pictures Of Lily (2011 film)

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Pictures Of Lily (2011 film) to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - your tag was quite correct, it was indeed a copyvio, but the author rewrote it enough to avoid that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the time I applied it, it certainly applied then. I'll keep an eye on it, as your prod note is still accurate. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I should have been clearer, the author rewrote it after your tag. I have blocked them as an obvious role account for the studio, but I would not be surprised to see the PROD removed by an IP. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I added some improvements and vote against deletion. Where is this listed? If there's a discussion about deletion, it should have been linked in the tag. Pkeets (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Turbo Dogs Season 2

Dear, MikeWazowski,

People keep on wondering if there is going to be a Turbo Dogs Season 2, I want to ask you if there is going to be a Turbo Dogs, Season 2.

Have a nice life on Wikipedia.

Love, Internationalboy54.

Dont delete it.

You do realise that my dyslaxia and dispraxia stopped me from writing correctly. If i didnt make sense i apologise. I am refering too, the Billie Joe Chapman.

That doesn't excuse the fact that the article appears to be a blatant hoax. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Well it isn't, and i am sorry for the misunderstanding, the one refering to young Dracula, i was making a page for him and wrote on the wrong page as i had it minimized and decided too delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieFan13 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
So you also changed the band he was a member of, not to mention the false claims of starring in Friends, Buffy, Angel, & Scrubs? Please... obvious hoax is obvious. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
He GUEST starred in these TV shows, I changed it because the new one he joined earlier this year, whick iwasn't aware of, and you don't have the right too delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieFan13 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't delete it - an administrator did. I would also advise against recreating it, as the obvious hoax was obvious, and similar hoaxes from you will be noted and flagged. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i have re-read and i apologise, i will refrain from making anything that seems like a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieFan13 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

National personification

I added the reference http://www.funimation.com/hetalia to my edit. And please watch Hetalia: Axis Powers so you know why Alfred F. Jones is there. Greenble (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again, as an anime show has nothing to do with the real-world national personification of the United States. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Then why is Hetalia: Axis Powers in the See Also section? Greenble (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It's there because that's the premise of the show, but that has NO BEARING on real life. The name you're trying to add has never been, and will never be, considered an actual personification of the country to the people of the United States. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Would a "fictional personifications of nations" work for something like what I'm trying to add? Greenble (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Just because you want to add something does not mean that you can or should. None of the other "characters" are mentioned in the National personification article, nor should they be - I'm sorry, but a four issue comic book from three years ago and its related TV series just isn't notable enough for that kind of inclusion. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
What if I made a Fictional National Personifications page? Then I can add more then just Hetalia: Axis Powers Greenble (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It would probably be deleted as non-notable. However, you could experiment with the idea in your own personal sandbox. Make sure to add this to your article-in-progress, though. WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a great idea! Thanks! Greenble (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Challoner%27s_Debating_Society deletion

Hi Mike - just wondered if you'd consider undoing the deletion as I believe the society is of note, and I can do a better job of referencing given the chance, it was after all my first article. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSGE (talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was just redirected to the school article - which is probably the best place for any additions, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll get used to this place eventually :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSGE (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

re Raised by the Stars

Well, you may have a good point. Somebody put the book in, but in the wrong place so I just moved it. I have no idea if its any good or not. I suppose assuming it really does have an interview from De Carlo's son it'd be useful, unless its false or sensationalist.

I don't have a strong feeling about not including material just because it's been spammed. If you want to remove the book from the article for that reason or any other it'd be OK with me. Herostratus (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

greetings ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAdrianTW (talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Net Talk Live! sent to AfD

It's probably on your watchlist so you've already seen it, but as a courtesy note, I sent Net Talk Live! to an an AfD discussion after Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs) removed the prod tag. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll comment there soon. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of Mani Dixit with Hemang Dixit/Shatru of Kathmandu

Thank you for your comment. I agree that there has been a duplication, as I was unaware of it being a problem. Thus, I propose to keep the page Hemang Dixit intact and delete the page Mani Dixit.

I would like to inform that I come from Nepal where I am a busy person in my real life ( I believe all of you are as well). I however do not have a dedicated internet connection, like majority of Nepalese population, thus when I added Shatru of Kathmandu, I meant to just add basic information first and add more information later. As wikipedia is used all around the world, I believe this publication which just came out in the market should receive its place here. Not only is this novel written by a local author who has written several novels, but also is very relevant to the current day scenario of Nepal which is plagued by criminals. The author himself have been shot in the past. You can find more information about it from following links: <http://www.peoplesreview.com.np/2006/040506/update.html> and <http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=From+bus+helper+to+extortionist++&NewsID=269360>

Please do note that it is very daring for anyone to write such a novel in a country like Nepal as well.

Finally, I request you to note that I may not be able to promptly reply to you. I will however try to reply your queries.

December2011 (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Josephine Komara (Obin)

I noticed the message you recently left to Josephine Komara (Obin). Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Of course you are right. But please note the infringing material was added after i put the ref. It could be a misunderstanding of how WP works. Cheers — Racconish Tk 16:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The only message I left was the automated one left when flagging for a copyvio - and the article was a clear copyvio at that point. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Granted. I did not mean to criticize you but to draw your attention this is a new user creating interesting stubs who needs guidance. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

You threatened to block me, so please discuss the issue. The main reason I've been reverting is the lack of response on the talk page. You're welcome to see for yourself. 206.188.135.140 (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

stop redirecting alcest please my information is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaahlder (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But the album itself does in fact come out in 2012, I have reliable information straight from the band. Do some research next time. Wasted an hour of my time editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaahlder (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And also, 2 months prior til release isn't too early. I've seen pages for artists come out 6 months prior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaahlder (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall wait for resources then. If that's the case, thanks Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaahlder (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Maya Badian

I'm the original writer. Regarding your tag on this article, the references below are not primary sources but are instead respected authorities. However, if you'll compare to the first two entries, the article has been completely replaced by what may be original research.

Dees, Pamela Youngdahl (2004). A Guide to Piano Music by Women Composers: Women born after 1900. Sadie, Julie Anne; Samuel, Rhian (1994). The Norton/Grove dictionary of women composers.

I notice the phrase "Her commitment to composition was made early, firmly, passionately, and never withdrawn" appears in several online sources and is apparently plagiarized. Perhaps other elements of the current article should also be checked for originality. Do you have any suggestions as to how to control the material being added? Pkeets (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


re: Rochelle Huppin edits

Hi Mike - On November 7th I wrote a very extensive question to you regarding edits and changes you made to Rochelle Huppin's wikipedia page. I explained reasons for the validity of the page as well as asked you for input, in the spirit of continuing discussion. I visited your talk page for a few days after and although you were active on your talk page, answering others, you did not answer or acknowledge my post to your page. I visited your page again and I cannot find my post anywhere. I have combed through your entire 2011 archive. Is it possible you deleted my question to you, my bolstering of the validity of the page (which you have given 5 separate negative demarcations) and my request for further exploration? Please advise as I find this very distressing and am incredibly frustrated at the run around. Thank you very much.

R. Robinson

Rohup2011 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Rohup2011

Well, looking at the article, I believe most of the tags are still valid. Based on your username and the clear lack of edits to anything other than Rochelle Huppin, the COI tag isn't going anywhere. Same applies to the advertisement tag - the article is incredibly promotional. I still believe the notability tag applies as well - given your apparent conflict of interest, this is one that you cannot accurately judge. I'll grant you the copyvio tag may not apply now - I've yet to find the direct lifts, but when that tag was applied, it seemed valid, given the excessive promotional nature of the article at the time - it appeared to have been copied from some kind of press release about the subject. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You were never here

I agree with you that the article You were never here is far too premature and fails WP:NFF. But as its planning IS written of in reliable sources, and as policy does allow that a future event might be discussed if written of in a related article if properly sourced, might you not think my thought toward redirecting the title to the director's article is worth consideration? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really - if the film does got made, the proper page would be at You Were Never Here. This thing isn't even in production yet - I think it's waaaay too soon at this stage. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Not disagreeing that the topic is too soon for its own article, nor that a redirect would have to be the correct title as you observe. But as it IS already spoken of in the director's article, a redirect of the correct title to the one place where policy indicates it may be spoken of in context seems to make sense... as long as it is properly sorced. Policy states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." As the director's article IS the place for such, my suggestion just as policy indicates. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Return of the Jedi cast list

Hi there,

I just posted some new info on the Return of the Jedi page, which was removed by you, stating, "very minor character with no lines." Well, please read Gerald Home's website (hisnamedotcom) and you'll learn otherwise. Also check out his Wikipedia page and the links to 3 excellent interviews at the bottom of the page, where you'll find lots more info and photos. You'll also see he had dialogue that wasn't used in the film. Also, size of part, and whether or not the character has lines, is not and should not determine whether a character can be listed on this page. Jeremy Bulloch is listed for Boba Fett, quite rightly, but Gerald Home has more on screen time than him, and is in the film's credits (as a Mime Artist, near the end of the credits) - so it's entirely correct that his characters should be included here. I'll await your reply before re-posting my info in the ROTJ section. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyandyates (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC) --Sallyandyates (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you really are Gerald Home, then you really shouldn't be editing articles related to yourself, as this is a clear conflict of interest. It doesn't matter what you have posted on your website - as far as the article goes, that's irrelevant. As for the cast list, we only list those with significant contributions to the film. Your name is not listed in the "supporting cast" section of the film credits - it only shows up under "mime artists" - you weren't credited with a character name on the actual film, and both the roles you claim are essentially background characters. They do not belong in the list of cast members, and will be removed should you add them again. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello again MikeWazowski,
Yes, I really am Gerald Home, and I'd like to give you some more information, facts which you don't know, I can see - so I invite you to email me so we can have a calm, friendly chat. I don't know if you're advised not to enter into email communications, but I'm a Star Wars actor, not in the business of arguing with people, and as you see from my website, I'm still a working actor, involved in prestigious productions, including working in conjunction with Lucasfilm, so you know I am who I say I am and that I'm a respectable person, not exactly a "stranger", inviting you to email him. Everything you see on my site is the truth, as it is on all Star Wars actors' sites, so rest assured I just want to give you some info which I guarantee will help you in your future editing activities. Email me through the calamarimen...etc email address on my website and you'll get straight to me. If I don't hear from you, I'll post further here, though I'd rather keep what I have to say private between you and me and it's easier for me to use email than this talk system. (I'm not clever online - my Wikipedia page, for example, was not created by me.) With thanks and best wishes. Gerald Home — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyandyates (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Funny, you claim not to have created the article on you, but according to your list of contributions, your very first edit to Wikipedia on January 25, 2007 was to create the Gerald Home article. Putting that aside, I'm not saying that your acting career is a fake, nor am I trying to delete that article. The original point was your insertion of your name onto the Return of the Jedi page as a main character, when that is demonstrably not true. I was correct to remove it, and I will be correct in removing it again, should it be re-added to the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, Please help

Hi Mike,

Yesterday you helped me change the wordings of my posting about Miadore.com so the entry would be in line with Wiki's guidelines, for which my big thanks.

However, this extremely rude guy by the name of Barek (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barek) thought it would be fun to delete the whole entry. I cant believe it! Is there any way you can get the page back?

Or can I email you with my original text for you to modify it again, before I post it? (I know, so sorry and embarassed to ask you).

I really can't believe this guy just deleted it without any explination and especially after you had rewritten some sections to make it in line with Wiki's guidelines. Really feel sad about this guy's actions :-(

Thank you

Shi JaxueShijiaxue (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid Barek was not being rude, he deleted the article because it met the specifications for speedy deletion - which I believe was the correct decision, because there was nothing in the article as I remember it to indicate any real notability, nor was there reliable sourcing to indicate that either. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you feel that way Mike. I thought this shop is fantastic, it's a token for China's development, especially in a market that you wouldn't immediately think of.

Also a bit confused that you helped me out editing it, which I still appreciate a lot, instead of deleting it like Barek, while you now say it wasn't worth it :-(

Hope somebody else will create this entry and it will not be deleted. It's more special than so many other things you can find on Wiki.

Shi JiaxueShijiaxue (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Six families of endor

Hi there; you have nominated this article for speedy deletion as a hoax. I am not certain that it is a hoax, as the mythology does hae a degree of background to it. I am not suggesting that the article should remain; but could I ask you to re-submit it under AfD? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I posted my reasoning for the hoax tag on the talk page of the article - I could find no evidence this is real. But if you think AfD is the place, I'll try that - but I still think it's a prime speedy candidate. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Austenasia

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Austenasia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There are some refs. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are some refs is not a reason to decline a speedy, especially when they're poor - however, I'll take it to AfD. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike, speaking of references, why do some people have 4 references for a short single line in article? I've seen that elsewhere and they all say the same thing, just from different sources (like from a press conference/interview). Is it okay to delete those when come across them? And I agree, just because every line is referenced, it doesn't make a good article. There's probably a lot more to read in those references than the subject for deletion.WylieCoyote (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't say why everyone does it, but many times, it's people overcompensating, trying to topload very short articles with refs to prove notability. I would be careful about removing references, tho - as a new editor, it would be best for you to propose and discuss that on the talk page first. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Surf Punks/Tony Creed

Why did you arbitrarily redirect the article I was marking up Tony_Creed to the Surf_Punks? --EdWissing (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I did not find the article as written to indicate notability enough for a standalone article. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Jonny Lines

I am asking you to withdraw your speedy deletion of my page. As I am still in the process of setting the page completely up.

Why punish another artist, who deserves to have a page? So people can research and find useful information on modern day poets, such as english students at school.

I feel that your speedy deletion request is a choice you have made in haste.

And therfore I ask kindly for you to withdraw.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnylines (talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you need time to work on a rough edit of an article it's best to do that in your own user space. Official articles have to meet certain minimum requirements to be kept. When they do not meet those minimum standards we have to delete them. If you want to work on a rough draft at your own pace create a page at User:Jonnylines/sandbox. Then when you are done polishing it ask somebody to check it over.
Remember that all Wikipedia articles need to use sources such as newspaper articles, books, and magazines. If the artist doesn't yet have newspaper, magazine, or book coverage they may not qualify yet for an article here. Cloveapple (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect using "No indications of separate notability"

Hi Mike,

Department of APECE,University of Dhaka has been organised there at University of Dhaka, Bangladesh recently. It needs information for the students of APECE and the page University of Dhaka unable to meet the needs. I'm a student of University of Dhaka. Please don't redirect the page to University of Dhaka. We, the students of APECE will add informations there. And I'm really sorry for some little mistakes.

Rashtab. --Rashtab (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not everything deserves a page, and Wikipedia should not be used by your university for adverting something that their own websites should cover. With that in mind, and since you're determined to contest the redirect, I've nominated the page for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of APECE, University of Dhaka and make your case there. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike, this is Terry another employee of WZMH Architects Firm. We are currently in the process of creating a brand new Website that will launch within the next weeks. One of the tasks that I have given to my team is to search various search engines to understand who and how we go about advising of the changes. Upon coming across old/outdated/and not approved images of our projects that are being populated on Wikipedia site, it was my instructions to the team to see how we go about changing them. WE are not changing text, however changing approved images. Do you really have that much time on your hands to be policing the site, 11 time to be exact for editing image/ or deleting. I'm not a big user of this site, but there has to be some legality to wrongful publications of images or content which I like to pursue. Given your available, I see no reason why you cannot provide this information in a timely. Thanks for your assistance and education in this matter. Terry — Preceding unsigned comment added by WZMH (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Amy Lemons

Hello MikeWazowski, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amy Lemons, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not tag the page for speedy deletion. I just restored the tag when it had been improperly deleted by the page creator. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


Your username?

I love Monsters, Inc also! --Eta-theta (autographs) 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletions / Undos

I am unsure why you seem to be targeting my posts. While I am new to it, is wikipedia not about sharing information? I am not a spammer.

You seem to want to delete and undo things very quickly. There is no way you have considered the material. Please take some time to compare the links and where they are posted and you will see that they are all interconnected and relevant. That's all I ask.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdsong2010 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have considered the material - every article you've created has been a blatant copyright violation of material lifted from Stephens Gerard Malone's website, and every contribution you've made (both in your account and from your original IP address) has been to add content promoting Malone and his books to various articles. You have not provided a single valid independent reference as to why any of this is notable, and I have been well within the guidelines to remove content or flag articles as necessary. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

-All I have had any time to do is chase you around as you chase me. How does anything ever get posted (or updated to make it current and more relevant - as i was only attempting to do) on Wikipedia with folks like you deleting items before they are even really completed or fully referenced properly? It doesn't make any sense and is not working in the spirit of sharing information freely and openly.

Again, I ask - how does a highly relevant historical reference to a book that isn't even available for sale any longer constitute book spam?

For the record, I was only copying material that already existed on Wikipedia. Again, if you would take the time to read before simply deleting items, you could investigate that.

I am not trying to start a war - far from it - but I am also not trying to spam anyone. I am only trying to update information and you are making that completely impossible.

You have to understand that not everyone works as fast as you are able to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdsong2010 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooops Dept

The marketing award thingy - you tagged it db-band... ~I've prodded it. You might like to prod2 or try another CSD (but not A7 - doesn't apply to awards, but the group behind it were A7ed quite legitimately). I don't think it's spammy enough for db-spam. Peridon (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd - I thought I tagged it just a plain A7... MikeWazowski (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Megamind Wikipedia

I wanted to know why the changes I submitted are deleted and why they are considered promotional material? How does one go about to mention Megamind's fans without it getting deleted from the Wikipedia page? Many other Wikipedia pages have been written referencing fans and their activities, so it is not unheard of. How should we word it differently so that it meets Wikipedia's standards? Here is the latest update I made, with citations. Of course, many of the citations are to fan sites and communites, but how is that considered promotional? Would it be better to write the same information down, but without the citations? Please help clarify what we need to change instead of just deleting it without asking first. Thank you.

This is the latest version I made of the new "Legacy" section I was trying to add to Wikipedia. Should it just be under the reception page instead? I could understand that and would put it under Reception.

Your reference to BoxOfficeJunkie (the only marginally acceptable reference you have) makes no mention of word-of-mouth reviews, and so can't be cited as "one factor". The rest is just promoting unremarkable fan sites. I'm sorry, but the Livejournal, Deviantart, and Facebook links you're using absolutely fail WP:RS - they should never be used as references, and would probably even be deleted as external links. Just because something exists doesn't mean that it's notable enough for inclusion. Nothing you've added has the kind of coverage necessary from independent reliable sources for inclusion. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

ITF Dubai

I would think you should not delete all the results of this tournament, because there IS , in my opinion, a need for an extra article for singles and doubles as well. Thanks Catgamer (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Would like to here why you think it should NOT have an extra article? Kante4 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems incredibly excessive - we shouldn't list every little detail of every sporting event. Displaying the winners on the main page seems to be appropriate coverage, if the event is actually notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you checked the other tennis articles from 2011/2010/2009 and so on? Kante4 (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
These caught my eye because they were edited by a new editor, largely empty, and seemed to be unnecessary forks when one master article would suffice. Wikipedia is not the tournament's webpage, and perhaps those other articles to refer to need to be looked at as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
So, we talk about it right here and you go ahead and make it a speedy deletion? No way... Kante4 (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The speedy was filed before you posted your last message. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don´t see the problem with having extra articles. Maybe talk to other tennis editors aswell. Kante4 (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike , look at 2010 there they did it with an extra article page for the Singles and Doubles as well, so I just thought that in that case it was a proper work that I did and I still think so, like Keroks said it.Catgamer (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
And why is it allowed to have an article for each ATP challenger in singles and doubles and for the same or higher price money ITF Women's tourneys it is deleted? I cannot understand that. :-(( Catgamer (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnathan James Recor

Hey Mike, I recognize your truly a busy guy and not to waste anymore of your time here but I have to honestly say that I don't rightly understand why this particular page doesn't establish notability. And not to sound overly rude here but, if the page is going to continually be deleted, flagged, monitored, and tagged by you indefinitely, I would appreciate an answer that explains how a person who dresses up as a giant beer can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keggy_the_keg) can have a sustainable page but this other artist/mascot/performer at Dartmouth can not? I don't understand. More specifically, how is this not notable: http://www.vnews.com/webextras/webextras-sungod.html?? Again I don't mean to sound rude in anyway, it's just that I worked hard and spent many hours trying to re-create this page again from scratch and now you deleted it again without much consideration to the fact that 80% of it's former self has been removed. I want to understand. It goes without saying that I feel very frustrated and upset because I don't know what it is you need to give this the 'okay'. Thanks for your understanding and I'm sorry if I sound upset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGildedEdge (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete anything - I merely flagged the article for deletion as a recreation of deleted material - which it was. The page was deleted by DGG the first time, and Fastily this time. As for the other pages, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I don't care about the other pages, as they have nothing to do with this discussion. And a webvideo from a local news site doesn't scream notability to me. I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as a notable individual, especially when the person in question had to create all the articles about himself the first time around, and you appear to have shown up the first time right soon after Recor asked people on his personal page to come sway the deletion discussion, and you recreated the article using elements uploaded by him. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply Mike but I never said you deleted anything. Rather, you contributed to it's deletion, which is more then relevant for discussion. The fact that you won't allow the page to be reviewed by other admins without your prior approval makes me strongly feel that you have a personal vendetta against the subject. Browsing through your post history with this subject, I can't help but notice the following entry deletions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth_College&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keggy_the_Keg&action=history
This is a cause for concern.
You mention "other pages", again Mike, I don't know what your talking about or what this has to do with the question at hand. "I'm sorry, but I just don't see this as a notable" -- Mike, my friend, this is the problem. By not allowing other admins on Wikipedia to pass judgement the second time around, it's only natural that you pose a bias towards the page. Regarding the WebVideo, are you aware that this simple slideshow won the national NEAPNEA contest - which apparently, is a big deal. Here is one of several thousand links I found on google: (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/07/27/business/neapnea-2011-website-contest-winners/).
"Especially when the person in question had to create all the articles about himself the first time around" -- Mike is this really true? -- The original page was up for two months before another user added substantial changes, in which you reverted back to it's original (passed/accepted) form as logged in the "view history". You also mention that I "appear to have shown up the first time right soon after Recor asked people on his personal page to come sway the deletion discussion" -- Mike, again, this is a biased assumption and note that the facebook page (which I have just reviewed for the past 20 minutes) has no record or post of anything concerning Wikipedia and because this point was the contributing factor that led to the deletion of the page, is a major cause for concern especially given this quote below in defense of the subject:
"Keep - The article has a subject of minor notability. "Clearly not notable" is not a viable position. Subject was a primary part of Dartmouth College/Hanover culture with a wide-spread message and cultural significance. With proper editing and clean-up to maintain neutrality, this article will provide important information on an significant series of events that defined an entire town and college community. Contents are verifiable. Please note: many people on Dartmouth College have a personal vendetta against J.J. Recor and many entries in favor of deletion may be the result of prejudice and personal opinion, unrelated to any concern for Wikipedia guidelines. Naysayers have also been brought to this discussion by Recor's Facebook page and are not impartial. Their disruption of this article due to personal prejudice against the article's subject is a violation of Wikipedia's anti-harassment policy. ALSO, no concrete proof of sock puppetry. Fellow editors who have broken no Wikipedia rules are being banned just for editing or associating with this article. This is unjust and against Wikipedia policy to ban users who have done nothing wrong. People need to take a careful look at what's going on here and understand that this isn't a trolling fest; some of us here are actually concerned about the important/relevant content of this article! Thank you. GW9IFAL804 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)— GW9IFAL804
Mike, I appreciate all your efforts in keeping Wikipedia a safe and friendly place, I would just politely ask that you reconsider this deletion. As a result of all these contributing factors, I see no reason why this page should not be up.
Thank you for your time, Rob
Sigh - you turn around and say " I never said you deleted anything", when you had *just posted* (and it's still visible right above your claim) "now you deleted it again". As I mentioned before, I did not delete anything, so there is nothing I can reconsider, and nothing I can do. The page was deleted as a recreation of deleted material (barely two weeks after it was deleted!) by a reviewing administrator - by deleting the article, they obviously felt it was close enough to the prior article (which was deleted after a standard and fairly run Articles for Deletion discussion) to merit such action. Your claim that I "won't allow the page to be reviewed by other admins" is therefore demonstrably false, as another admin had to review and then delete the reposted article. I also find it interesting that you claim that the Facebook page "has no record or post of anything concerning Wikipedia", when it clearly shows the seven most recent items are all a call for his fans to go "update this page back to it's original form" - perhaps you need glasses? I've taken screenshots, just in case you or Recor feel the need to edit the page to remove those items.
The original admin who deleted the article did so purely because of its unambiguous promotional nature, which means your idea that Facebook was the contributing factor is rather doubtful. As I mentioned when I first nominated the article for deletion, I did not feel the subject was notable enough for an article. You obviously feel differently, but I have not changed that opinion. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware that there were multiple pages on Facebook for this subject as I was clearly going by the thread that was posted in the deletion discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnathan_James_Recor). And I don't appreciate you calling me names as it is a violation of Wikipedia's anti-harassment policy. You obviously have some beef with this guy and I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to get in the middle of you two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGildedEdge (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, don't play the victim card here - where did I call you a name? Questioning your eyesight when something is so blatantly displayed (after you supposedly had looked for 20 minutes) was sarcastic, yes, but not name-calling. I have no beef with the Recor - I'd never heard of him before coming across his page on a patrol of new editor's contributions, and it (rightly) set off multiple warning bells about notability and self-promotion. I've tried to be civil with you, even after being called biased and being (falsely) accused of having a vendetta. I see hundreds of pages a day - this was just one of many. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative casting me as Recor's Wikipedia Boogeyman, but it's the truth. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello,can you please give me a valid reason for removing the entire TAKRL discograpy ?

I notice that you have removed the entire TAKRL discograpy due to an unknown reason.I put all this information up on Wikipedia due to the lack of information about this labels released.I base all the information on the fact that I have ALL THESE RECORDS IN MY PERSONAL COLLECTION.I also have valid information about the TMOQ/TAKRL label from a friend of the people who actually set up the label in the -70ths.I cant see how you have the authority to remove it all and I would like to hear your reason for doing so.Regards Rune Skulstad.Bergen.Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyspes (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Had you read my edit summary, you would know that the reason was, in fact, because it was unreferenced. Your original research is not an acceptable source, nor is Wikipedia a marketing outlet for this label. Without valid referencing to a reliable source, it should not be re-added. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
ok,so question 1..what is a "reliable source" ? as the label have been defunkt since 1978
I have the vinyl proof as I have all titles in my own collection
question 2...why are you stopping me from giving collectors a discography on this label and at the same time the "mother label" TMOQ have had a discography on wikipedia for many years.What is the difference between the main label and the sub-label ? sorry I dont get it
question 3..what authority do you have to remove all this information ?
I have the authority any user has when confronted with unreferenced original research. I do not need your permission to remove it - in fact, it's actively encouraged. And since you're edit-warring on the page now using multiple accounts (a named one and an IP), you're in violation of those same guidelines, and have been reported to the appropriate board. Enjoy your block from editing which should be coming soon. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Mr Wazowski

I want to "play by the book" and obay the Wikipedia rules,so I have now linked all the information I uploaded on Wikipedia to the book Hot Wacks page 769&&770.This book was published in 1992 and is still on sale on amazon.com.Here is a link http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Wacks-Book-XV-Whack/dp/0969808038.I hope by doing this that I have corrected all my prevous mistakes and that I can finish the discography..regards rune Flyspes (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

V.J. Manzo page

Hi Mike--I am writing in response to the request for deletion under the pretense of being the subject and author. I can assure that this is not the case. I admire the subjects work and, as a fan, have followed his career and chose a screenname that he used for a character in his 2003 book and in the band Cryptic Bay years before he was known. Please don't delete the page in these grounds. The article is shaping up and others, at least one other, is contributing. Thanks for considering this request. Merlingoth88 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Merlingoth

My criteria for deletion has nothing to do with whether you're Manzo or not - it's a question of reliable sources and notability, and while you've referenced the hell out of that page, hardly any of them are from independent reliable sources. However, as to your identity, this image of Manzo, which is used on many of his sites, including his personal Twitter page, is specifically credited being authored by Manzo, and it links to your userpage over there. Hi, VJ... 05:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Phantasia

I dont understand why the Phantasia page i created was deleted... I was still in the process of updating and completing this article. There are hundereds of bands listed here on wikipedia, so for what reason was mine deleted? Thanks Michael A. StJames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progologist (talk • contribs) 17:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As the note I posted on your talk page explained, the band did not appear notable enough for an article, and a reviewing administrator obviously agreed. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with your speedy deletion

I am new to wiki and read your speedy deletion. I have checked and feel it is unjustified. Please either give me advice on how to rectify this and remove the speedy deletion button. I am disappointed at the lack of encouragement here on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia 76 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you deleting articles that are not compeleted or finished? on the basis of non importance. I know you have not even investigated as if you have you would not delete. I am requesting you give opportunity for this page to grow and not be so hasty on this decision. i will go through all the right options so that this can be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia 76 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not deleting anything - I'm flagging articles I see as not showing enough notability to have an article, and a reviewing admin (who is the one actually doing the deletions) obviously agreed. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

'Zeronoize' CSD Flag & Resulting Deletion

Hello, I noticed that Zeronoize was flagged for CSD and deleted before I even noticed. The reason for the flagging was that the "article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant." That is in fact true that the article did not contain any information about why it was important but the only reason for that was because of the nature of the article, I was afraid it would be flagged for advertising if I had included information on why it is important/significant. I'm not sure how to go about requesting that the article be undeleted so that I can include some of that information; however, I find it almost pretentious that you have the authority to declare what is important or not when the page was not even completed yet. InfinitelyNothing (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Learning to write Wikipedia articles can be a bit confusing. I'm glad to hear you were making an effort to make the article neutral and not ad-like. One way to show that your article subject has some importance (and to also meet the higher threshold that Wikipedia calls "notability") without sounding like an ad is to show that multiple books, newspapers, or magazines have discussed the subject of your article.
While you are still in the rough draft stage of forming the article it might be helpful to work on an unofficial rough draft page first. You can do that by starting a page at User:InfinitelyNothing/sandbox.
As to where MikeWazowski got the authority, there are some minimal guidelines an article has to meet in order to be an official article. Any Wikipedia editor has the authority to mark articles for deletion that don't meet that minimal threshold. (Then the actual deletion is done by an administrator.)
If any of this is still confusing just ask me. Cloveapple (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The article I created.

Chmts (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I put text for place holder and still new to wikipedia. I'm going to learn more about creating an article and change/add original text. So please don't delete the article. Chmts (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Official articles can't really have place holder text. If you want to work on a rough draft you can create a page at User:Chmts/sandbox and work there. Then whenever you want some feedback or think the article is no longer just a place holder feel free to ask somebody for help. Cloveapple (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hey. I saw you marked my page for deletion which I totally get because it looks like crap right now. How long do I have to get it looking better before it gets taken down? It is a work in progress and a page I was planning to work on over Christmas break. thanks for your input. Zackmann08 (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Official articles have to meet some basic criteria right away. Articles that are missing the most basic requirements can be deleted immediately. If you want time to work on a rough draft start a page at User:Zackmann08/sandbox and work there. Then when you think it is ready or want some feedback just ask for somebody to check on it. Feel free to ask me if you've got more questions. Cloveapple (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Bahadir Kaleagasi

I fail to understand why you have 'speedy deleted' the page of Bahadir Kaleagasi. Is it because of my Wikipedia username? I am not representing this person, nor is the article an autobiography. Does an important political figure not deserve to have a Wikipedia article? After all, I put my references from independent sources as well as the official website of Dr.Bahadir Kaleagasi. Please state your reason for the deletion of the page, it was written form a neutral point of view. Kaleagasi (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete anything - I just flagged it as promotional, which an administrator apparently agreed with. According to the deletion logs, it was deleted for being unambiguously promotional, and it had been deleted once before as a copyright violation. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Momentum

How is it that 8x8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8x8 can have the same style page as Momentum Telecom, yet my Momentum page is deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoccerHoodie (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That page is well referenced (yours was not), and does not appear to be a blatant copyvio of the subject's website, while the page you created undoubtedly was. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

G-Eazy

It seems to me like you think you have a God given right to patrol Wikipedia and put any article up for deletion that you see fit. Why is this? Whats your problem? The article is notable, the cover song has 300,000 views on Youtube which for an Independent singer is notable. The artist has opened for million record sellers such as Lil Wayne and Drake and is currently on a tour and can be cited in a number of independent music sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewbik (talk • contribs) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Any editor has this right. If you think the person is notable, make your case (with relevant and appropriate citations) on the AfD discussion page. At the time I nominated the article, he did not appear notable enough to me, based on information presented in the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong

When you put SNL episode 702, it redirects to the article "SNL season 37". However, this episode is from season 36. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teen13USA (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop redirecting my articles!!!

Stop creating unnecessary SNL articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kopytman

It's Creative Commons licensed now - on the page mentioned on the talk page. I deleted it, then put it back up. I'm not sure about the notability etc, so I've left those tags up. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You said the text was CC licensed - however, the page I flagged it as being a copyvio from (http://www.bmop.org/explore-bmop/musicians/mark-kopytman) makes no mention of that - in fact, it specifically states ©2010 BOSTON MODERN ORCHESTRA PROJECT. FYI. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mike - The BOSTON MODERN ORCHESTRA used the information that was published on www.kopytman.com which I have worked on with the composer himself when he was alive. The http://www.bmop.org/ certainly does not have the copyright, but we don't mind, we have placed the CC notice on the original page http://www.kopytman.com/information.php?info_id=1. I noticed that other people started editing the biography upon the news of his death, so it is a work in progress. I have removed the issues tags because i have added a number of references and so it is no longer based on a single source. I ask that you please remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AriBenami (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Given the recent history of the page, I believe the tags are necessary - there's more here at stake than the "one source" issue. The WP:COI tag is especially critical, as you just reaffirmed here that you were directly affiliated with the individual - that is a clear COI. The other tags are still relevant as well, and they should be removed (if at all) by an uninvolved editor once they no longer apply. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Lady Alexandra Borbon-Heron

hi, the lady alexandra heron, was deleted because the first creator of that said that Alexandra was a grandaughter of both King Juan Carlos of Spain and queen elizabeth ii which is impossible, the lack of google searches on the name is because she isnt a main line blood heir to either the british or the spainsh throne and isnt photographed alot, but in spain we learn about the whole family and she is in my school text book, under Spanish Nobility and relations of King Juan Carlos I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.56.115 (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me while I say "yeah right"... if she is notable enough at 15 to be included in a textbook, there'd be some mention of her somewhere. Nice try. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
My comment would be 'Oh aye?' I'd be rather interested to see that textbook. Was she written in in ballpoint or fountain pen? She isn't photographed a lot, but she's a model? Proof required for all these claims. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

MVB Records

Hi Mike. Can you please help me to understand more clearly why the page for MVB Records was deleted? Also, I would like you to tell me what is the textual difference between the page for previous page for MVB Records and Roc-A-Fella records. This will help me to write better pages, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamrahkid (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its a source of information. I see no difference between my page about "Urban pop culture" and "MVB Records". I also compared my "MVB Records" page to other record label pages on Wikipedia and I see no difference. As a new editor you are not helping me to become comfortable with creating articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamrahkid (talk • contribs) 02:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not my place to help you create an advertising page for various companies, especially ones that do not appear to be notable. You should also note that I am not the one deleting the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And ooooo, calling an admin's comment on their own talk page vandalism - that was a smart move... bye bye. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kopytman

Just because someone says there is a COI isn't enough of a reason to litter the page with scary tags. If you see a COI too please show me where the article is not true to the facts of Mark's life and work. In fact both tags are disruptive to the readers and should be removed. The article seem to be factually accurate and so I'm not sure why it has to be re-written. It can be improved and people from all around the world are trying to do just that. I am not a wiki contributor and as i said did not write any of the content myself but i know that it is what Mark himself seen and accepted as accurate information. I am family of Mark, i started the page; but that's about it. Now it has life of its own. Are you some kind of Wikipedia official? AriBenami (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because something may be "factually accurate" doesn't mean that there isn't a conflict of interest. By your own admission, you are Kopytman's son-in-law, and responsible for the website where the clear majority of the text currently in the article is sourced from. I'm sorry, but by every definition in the book and/or on Wikipedia, you have a clear and undeniable COI on the article - the tag doesn't mean the article is not credible, it simply means that it has been extensively worked on my someone who is not neutral on the subject. This is not disruptive, dismissive or the person, it it just simple objective fact. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mike, you are turning me into a wiki... i read this about COI and it seems to me that a reasonable person will be hard pressed to demonstrate how i am trying to promote my own interest here, or that of another individual (deceased) or a group... I quote: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest...." AriBenami (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Maaco page

Thank you--Persianlime (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

excuse me?

please help me improve this. this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_%28band%29 they also won the award "Gallup Korean" so they putted First Place instead of Won. Is it Okay if I did that to Dal Shabet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.2.225.220 (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Forum popularity contests are not notable. I did not see it on the page for Infinite, and you need to stop adding it to the page for Dal Shabet. You have been reverted on this by more than one editor. If you continue, you could be blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

VIST Bank, VIST Insurance and VIST Virtual Redirects

Hi Mike,

I posted the following on your talk page last week and am waiting for a response. Please reply.

I see that you redirected the following pages I posted. VIST Bank, VIST Insurance and VIST Virtual Bank. These pages were redirected to VIST Financial. On the surface they may seem to be duplicative efforts, but these are individual entities under the VIST Financial umbrella. The page I created for VIST Mortgage was deleted altogether when it really was not too much different than the other companies under the Category:Mortgage|Lenders. Can you please explain why these were redirected or deleted and better yet can these pages please be reverted back to a live status? If not would you suggest augmenting the VIST Financial pages with the content from the individual pages or will that be too much and create issues with the Wiki reviewers? Thank you in advance for your help. (talk)Hmanick (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hmanick (talk) Hmanick (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Still multiple issues?

Hi Mike,

Does my page still have multiple issues? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roschier_Attorneys_Ltd.

If not, I was told the message must be removed manually.

--ChristineShaw (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeWazowski/Archive_5&oldid=1252108610"