User talk:Mike Rosoft

Archived discussions:

April Fool's Jokes

Mike Rosoft, please understand me. I'm trying very, very hard to be civil. April Fool's jokes are a time-honored tradition on Wikipedia. Editors devote 364 days of every year to serious contributions. I think it's OK to have fun on day 365. I promise to help clean up after April Fool's Day is over. The definition of vandalism is a bad-faith edit. I'm not trying to harm the encyclopedia. I do recognize your adminship and experience, though, and it's OK to agree to disagree. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for removing vandalism from my user page. Enjoy! Denisarona (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

About Asif's relativistic charge and field equations

I had seen you had proposed it for deletion. I have nominated the article for deletion and you can have your opinion here. Shriram (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Ubuntu releases: Revision history

Hi!

I just wanted to mention that it is SudoGhost who is doing the edit problem, because he is not reading before changing.

I just added link to animals that Ubuntu creators picked.

Reference to that is even on that page!

All the best SilverWolf7 (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

EC on Simmelian tie

I am sorry, I couldn't figure out what your edit was changing, so I overwrote it with mine (it was a major edit for me). I am now done editing, so feel free to change anything you'd like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was fixing a link to Triad (sociology); I see you had fixed it yourself, too. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

al-Farabi

You are showing no respect to the people of Islamic faith by putting the pictures of Islamic scholars on the public page, please write me back an explanation of why you reverted that last change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.13 (talk) 30 May 2012

This would appear to be user talk:Majilis Jim1138 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

OK so I see you or your bot has reverted all my changes made to the Ancient Hawaii article. Unless you are Hawaiian or an anthropologist in this area of study would you mind reverting the changes back? The article is horrible in it's original state. Aside from reading like it was written by an 8th grader it's full of un-cited BS, unprofessional grammar, and missing actual useful information. Mahalo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.201.128 (talk • contribs)

Page Deletion - FYIcode

Dear Mike, I am so sorry that our page was viewed as a promotional site. However, this page is not one of promotion but a page of a communication evolution. Just in the way QR Codes became a way for people to communicate messages, FYIcodes are the same but better, they allow 'any user' with 'any telephone' a way to access and spread their messages. This is along the lines of what a QR code partially offers and we are only trying to document the evolution of a new technology. I did not have enough time to fill in the gaps and the sources to meet your requirements. Please respectfully reinstate so that we may have the opportunity to speak accurately on the behalf of a new historical communication technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnrenee14 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the Jane Seymour article. I used rollback but could not undo the layers of vandalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Music director, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. WaggersTALK 13:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My faith in humanity

Has been restored when a new user named TrollTrollTrollTroll can be indeffed after only 3 vandal edits. My, my. Good for you![1] SBHarris 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

botness?

Saw you deleted one of my works in progress. Are you a bot or a real person? Gizmo.AT (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Invite-instructor Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Smiggle

Hey, can you un-salt Smiggle, which you were the last peson to delete in September 2010? There are reliable, secondary sources about the store that exist, and I would like to write the article from scratch. Thanks. Till I Go Home ^{talk stalk} 02:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much:) I have since created the article. Till I Go Home ^talk 15:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Road Sign articles for Botswana and South Africa

Would you mind explaining to me why you deleted these two articles? Yes Jermboytold2 was a sock (which was a shame, cause I actually appreciated him creating pages for my signs so I didn't have to), but all the road signs (except one or two) were made by myself, and they are sourced on their description pages, so your deletion summary saying "completely unreferenced" is not actually true. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like this time, the road signs themselves are legitimate. However, the articles are unreferenced and little more than galleries of road signs; they would have been more suited to Wikimedia Commons. (If you are interested in them, I can recover them into your user space as drafts.)
  The user in question has had a history of creating articles about road signs containing signs from different countries - at best, without verifying that they actually exist in the other countries and have identical design; at worst, as straightforward hoaxes. (Plus joke pages about non-existent countries like Hotsapore and Rafid.) For this reason, I do not see him as trustworthy. (See User talk:Santapo.)
  As User:Jermboytold, he created a couple of unsourced articles about rod signs; I asked him to pick one, I'd recover it as a draft into user space, and then he'd be able to work on it and provide references. He responded by vandalizing The Land Before Time (adding non-existent countries), and (after I blocked him) returning as User:Jermboytold2. This time, I deleted his contributions and blocked him as a sockpuppet with prejudice. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the sock problem, and wish this user hadn't resorted to that. I created a road sign article myself some time ago for Zimbabwe, but since then my work on making road signs that we do not have on the project has went from minor hobby to a full-fledged job, and when the user created the pages, it was a time saver for me. I understand now why you deleted them, and I can create them in the future properly and with sources and links, I just wished to know why you deleted them. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually if you don't mind you can delete the user space pages you made for me now, I have created the Botswana and South Africa road sign articles now with proper references. Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and a <delete>small</delete> new, larger request

Hello Administrator Rosoft!
Thank you for your kindness in visiting my talk page today, and clarifying how I could correctly apply categories. My request is very small, and may be completely ignored, or at most, be your very lowest priority. Could you tell me where I was mis-applying categorization syntax? It would help me to learn. But if you have too many other things to do, just ignore this, and accept my thanks for taking the time to visit and help me! --FeralOink (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings to you, Administrator Rosoft! I'm back! NOW I understand what that pertained to! Thank you so much for clearing up the "vague"-ly anomalous addition of a user page as a category in a Wikiproject. I didn't know what to do about it at the time, and completely forgot about the matter between April and late June. You handled it with finesse, from what I could piece together. I am appreciative.

I have a new request (you were so helpful once already ;o) Background: I read an article yesterday, in Scientific American, about a website which is propagating misinformation about non-mainstream (to put it mildly) paleontology. This wasn't one of those fluffy SciAm articles, but rather, more like the sort they used to write back in the 1980's. As evidence of the insidiousness and pernicious effect of the situation, there was an example given, of how one of the fabricated "creatures" even has an entry here, in Wikipedia. And sure enough, it does. The WP article references a Royal Society publication, but without any link. I dug for the source somewhere online, finally found it, and confirmed that there was no such reference to this creature, nor the "scientist" (I think he was fabricated too) in the Royal Society proceedings. In fact, that citation is associated instead with completely different published work done by people with PhD's who work for the Museum of Natural History in New York City, about 20 years ago.

Unfortunately, the fabricated creature was entered in at least one of those online biological taxonomy databases (I noticed that too). I have the URL etc. I don't know that it was done with any ill-intent. Obviously, I am rather horrified that the taxonomic record of evolution that has been so painstakingly created is being undermined by a single flakey website. But that is not our concern here, and I am not a bioinformatics person, nor a taxonomist. What IS our concern, I believe, is the fabricated creature (as I am referring to it) article, here on Wikipedia. Of course, I could just be BOLD, and delete the thing, but it has a lot of visibility at the moment, and I wanted to get some input from someone such as yourself first. I can provide URLs and quotes from sources as corroboration, but I don't want to just deposit the mass here on your talk page without some prior notice. Or should I just be quiet and not rock the boat? The article in Wikipedia is not the cause of the larger problem. It is merely one consequence of the huge popularity of the website that was the subject of the SciAm article. --FeralOink (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Notice

Thank you, for your help regarding page notice.But i really do not know how to add this notice on my talk page.Can you tell me the course of how to add this page notice in my talk page,so that when any user edit my talk page those notice could appear. once again Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^ϟ 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fajita63

Wasn't this block a bit hasty? I know it was clearly spam, but it was only one single edit. I don't believe one edit to be warrant for an indef. Cloud you please take another look? Regards. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted a response, but then reverted it? Something wrong? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

Content issues belong on the article's talk page NOT on user's talk pages. Your post on my page could appear to be an ill-disguised threat. If its content has substance, post it on the article talk page. So, please quote me the court verdict that uses the word "terrorist". And post it on the article talk page, NOT here and NOT on my talk page! Meowy 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

York Sports Village

Hi

Why did you delete this page when it has relevant information and more to be added, and it had been contested for with in space of 1 minute you deleted it i don't thats fair at all. Osbaldwickparish (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Ugly >:l Hello! I'm Shy Zorua! 16:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Grey alien

I semi-protected and blocked them all - it's from a school. Ref/del'd the edit with someone else's phone number. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified Flying Objects revert

Hi Mike. Please note and feel free to contribute this discussion on the Unidentified Flying Objects talk page. I intend to eventually remove the reference to the ET Hypothesis from the intro to the article. A UFO is a report. The ET Hypothesis is a theory to explain the reports. The ETH is not important to UFOs on a definitional level. And as skeptics everywhere agree, the conflation of the word UFO with the concept of alien spaceships is illogical and a huge step that is not justified. Therefore we should not start an encyclopedia article on UFOs by making that same association! Clotten (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

France in the Middle Ages

Consider 3-hr protection--seems to be a school. Thank you. Mindy Dirt (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)