User talk:MikeWazowski: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:31, 22 June 2011

Archives

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

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)[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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[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]

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)[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]

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[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]

"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)[reply]

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

Stick Man

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]

Rollback

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]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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)[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]

sleeping dogs

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]

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)[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]

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. Omkar 1234 ^{Space ShuttleOmkar1234!} 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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]

Thank you

	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]

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)[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]

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)[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]

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)[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]

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)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MikeWazowski. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

v/r - T P 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Due to edit warring, I have blocked you for a period of 24 hours. Though you have not broken 3RR, you have edit warred both on the Bugs Bunny article and image (breaking 3RR in spirit if counting both reverts), and you did not take reasonable steps to avoid an edit war, such as talk page participation. Rami R 16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MikeWazowski (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Excuse me, but in both instances I backed off so as not to violate 3RR. I tried to reason with the other editor, and I didn't appreciate his insinuations that I was vandalizing, when I was in fact trying to fix issues with the article - issues which (it should be noted) have been backed up by multiple other uninvolved editors reverting his edits as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

3-rr is not an entitlement and you can be edit warring even though you do not technically breach 3-rr. In this case you were edit warring and this request does not address the reason for your block; therefore, I have to decline to unblock you. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[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]

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)[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.

Orphaned non-free image File:FanboysPoster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FanboysPoster.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Doobious Sources

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Doobious Sources to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. I agree it's an almost certain hoax, but they've gone to the trouble of making a website, so (though my finger was on the delete button) let's pretend it's serious and give it a PROD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: S.J. Moreland and Sons

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of S.J. Moreland and Sons, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think there is enough here to pass A7, and it could probably be developed. At least it is historical interest, not the usual disguised ad for a current company. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]