Archives

Archive 1 - 2006 Archive 2 - 2007-2008 Archive 3 - 2009 Archive 4 - 2010

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[reply]

Dear MikeWazowski,

The manuscript [1] has a summarization of 3D face databases (did you see Table 1? did you read the description about each database?). I think that this material is important to anyone involved in 3D face datases. What was the scientific criteria to delete this reference? The IMPA-FACE3D is a database created by the Institute of Mathematics and Statistics - IMPA. The PDF (Technical Report, freely available) is not a promotional material. I made this summarization as a part of my PhD thesis. By the way, in this moment, table [2] is not the one document used in the construction of the aforementioned table. I have filled this webpage with the information belonging to the technical report.

I appeal for your tolerance if my message is contrary to your criteria.

Sincerly, J. P. Mena-Chalco (jmena)

[1] J. P. Mena-Chalco, R. M. Cesar-Jr., and L. Velho. Banco de Dados de Faces 3D. Technical Report 1-8, Institute of Mathematics and Statistics - University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, January 2011. TR 02. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_facial_image_datasets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.44.18 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks very much for clearing the mess up. ISD (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

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

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Spoken like a true politician. Thanks, that tells me everything I need to know. Cheers. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the passive/agressive snark/insult... nice to see that you're consistent, anyway... MikeWazowski (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No need to be snarky. Protonk (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

No doubt. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello MikeWazowski, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Atlanta School of the Performing Arts, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. MacMed^talk_stalk 13:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Kinedo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh and I have no objection to another A10 if the redirect gets overwritten. Monty₈₄₅ 20:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ahhh, gotcha. I was only aware of the deletion from yesterday. Carry on. LOL Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 03:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just letting you know that I'm contesting your CSD as the article does not appear to be blatant spam, and any problems with tone are perfectly fixable. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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))[reply]

Just wanted to let you know, I have challenged your CSD A7 on Joseph J. Magliocco. Subsequent to your tagging, additional claims of importance were added, which in my opinion move the article beyond the reach of criteria A7. I have no objection if you would like to pursue and alternative deletion process, or even an alternative CSD criteria on the article. Monty₈₄₅ 16:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Religare, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: doesn't seem unambiguously promotional in tone and judging by the references is notable per WP:CORP. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of OCTAVE Business School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. You recently prodded two of my articles, In Pit Lane and No Limits (Australian TV series). The first one I don't object to. The second article has been written up quite a lot in the mainstream press. However I no longer live in Victoria so I'm not in a position to find them right now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]