User talk:MikeWazowski

Odd Title

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

I Understand But, That Page Has to have a name change. This is not a forum, so we can't dub those episodes that season without reliable refereances, so what other title(s) do yo propose K.O.K Kev (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not "have to" have a name change now. Wait until more is known. Seriously - your personal opinions don't enter into it right now. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding episodes 93 through 149 back to the Road to Destiny page? If there really is a Season 4, your edits aren't showing that. Please be consistant with your edits, in order not to confuse people. By the way, If there will be no Season 4, then why don't you just delete the page already? Anyways, if there won't be a Season 4, please present your source, so that I may also agree with you. With thanks, 72.197.237.120 (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars title

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

Notice

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

Sliders - Series Revived after Cancellation

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

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

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

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

"Sorry"

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

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

Dan Schneider

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

Warner Bros.

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

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

Brazil

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

Indiana Jones needs more than a bullwhip for help

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

Plot length tag

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

Lowestoft articles

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

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

Don't drag me into it - Mike has every right to edit them as he sees fit. I'm looking to work on other articles just now. And do some real work.--Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Darkcover21, until I see some basic understanding of spelling, grammar, and punctuation from you (and I've seen little from you thus far), I will continue to edit "articals" you contribute to as I see fit. Also, please read WP:OWN, as you do not have the right to tell anyone not to edit any article. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Why did you revert?

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

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

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

Mongrels and List of Mongrels episodes

Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCrumb

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

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

"Spock Principle"

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

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

Stick Man

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

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

Rollback

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

• 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)

Thanks - so what did 81.151.238.212 post that was so bad to get it perma-removed? MikeWazowski (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing particularly witty, really; it was just a brief rant regarding your... Shall we say smartness? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me - this guy's been IP hopping and/or insulting me when he gets caught for months now... MikeWazowski (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Remember, now that you have rollback you'll see links to it when you visit a contributions, history or watchlist page. If you have a touchsceen device you may accidentally fat finger it and revert some random good edits! Just go back and revert yourself and everything will be cool. Good luck using the tool. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

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

America: The Story of Us

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

So? Are you going to start adding in every single airing in every single country? How is this even remotely notable or have any impact on the actual production itself? It's a minor inconsequential detail. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not the first TV article to bring up the subject of airings. It's notable to Canadians. Or are you saying that Canada is inconsequential? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to put words into my mouth - the subject of the article is about a TV series. That's it. A rebroadcast, even in another country, is not inherently notable, unless there was something newsworthy about it, like incredible ratings or some newsworthy controversy/public interest. All you're adding is that it aired. Big whoop - it has no significant bearing on the program itself, and unless you can find some valid justification for it's notability, it doesn't belong. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And as I said before, it's not a "rebroadcast. It would only be a rebroadcast if Canada is considered part of the U.S., which it's not. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a rebroadcast, in that the original airings, around which all the press and awards are related, was a year ago. These new airings are not inherently notable - they just exist. They're essentially syndication. Unless there is some special notability granted just for some network, Canadian or otherwise, deciding to air the thing, that mention doesn't belong. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, would you take this position for Canadian shows that subsequently aired in the U.S. a year later? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on the circumstances. This is not a black/white, right/wrong, Jake vs. Wikipedia thing here - I treat things on a case by case basis, looking at notability, press coverage/citations. I will not give you a definite answer on this question, because it cannot be answered definitely without looking at the specifics of a given situation. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bruce Cabot meets HarveyCarter

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

About Deletion of ReduceMail Pro

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

One thing you need to understand is that if you are being paid to write an article, or are connected to the company that developed the software, you have a clear conflict of interest and have no business creating or substantially editing such an article. If this software is notable, let someone unconnected write about it independently. Also, in regards to Enterprise Vault, you'd be wise to look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's a poor argument for inclusion. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that I definitely have a conflict of interest. My goal is ultimately for the article to remain itself on Wikipedia, so in order to do that, I will attempt to be as neutral as possible. Granted, I won't go out of the way to include a "criticisms" section, but if it did appear, I wouldn't excise it. If it seems that what I am saying appears biased, then others should criticize the article on that basis, including one of those bias tags, and we should see if we can make it better. I feel that on-the-market software of any sort is notable. To only include the history and describe what the software does is in no way problematic. The language simply needs to remain without value judgments. To prove that I am of good faith, what if I write a Wikipedia article about another piece of software of which I have no relation? Perhaps even a similar competing software to ReduceMail Pro? I truly feel that any type of on-the-market software deserves Wikipedia mention. I am writing the artice for work, but only in so much as I am supposed to be serving the general public knowledge. I'll do anything reasonable I need to do to get this properly back on Wikipedia in a way that only is of benefit. Just say the word and tell me what to do, Mr. Wazowski. Ereep (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying you're doing this article for work - are you employed by or for the company that makes this software? Because if you are, then you do have a clear conflict of interest, as far as Wikipedia is concerned - I'd advise you t take a look at the specific guidelines and familiarize yourself with them before continuing. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Talkback

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

FWIW

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

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

sleeping dogs

Oops....

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

I gave him one last chance today to discuss this like an adult - however, his little "warning" just shows me that he still doesn't see that he bears any responsibility for his actions. His loss. I've got better things to do than worry about him from here on - however, he really needs to lay off the wild accusations, or I will bring him up at the Wikiquette boards and let them deal with it, should he continue. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree he needs to refocus his concerns. It's just human nature to lash out if you feel cornered, and I don't think it really hurts anything to let him vent a little bit on his talk page. Gerardw (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's almost funny watching him rant about how unfair this has all been. Almost. And since I know he's reading and looking for something to add to his list of injustices - regarding his potential SPI witch hunt? Bring it on, kid - I can't wait to see your next conspiracy theory after that idea gets shot down. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fyi... [1] So unless Wombat Fuerstrum creates yet another sock and/or lives up to his threat of harassing me via anonymous IP, he's going to have some time to think about what he's done. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Well, darn, it's already been closed and removed... oh well. I'm sure he'll just add this to his conspiracy theory. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

QTalk Arizona

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

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

Mistake of vandalizing article List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes

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

Cowboys & Aliens

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Heavenly Creatures locations

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

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

Marking as Patrolled

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

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

Billy Moses

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

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

Chen Tao

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

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

Henstead, Cummersdale, Winscales

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

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

Spider 3 issue

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

I can find no reliable sources that mention Warburton's connection to this film, except for articles where he brings it up himself. The promotional material released for the film at the American Film Market and Cannes do not mention him at all. Until you can provide reliable sources (and the IMDB is not one, in this case), please stop adding his name to the page. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a CONTRACT signed which states Dustin Warburton gets a STORY credit on the film. The production company updated the IMDB page to verify Warburton's credit. Since the film is in Post production, only the production company can add credits to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteatpbp (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We are managing Warburton's affairs and we have a signed contract verifying Warburton's credit. If need be we will post a portion of the contract on his website if this continued deletion occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteatpbp (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can add (or remove) credits from the IMDB at any time, unless an article is locked as "listings complete" by a production company. And even then, there's still some leeway given on the part of the editors so far. But what it all comes down to is that no official material released by NuImage or the filmmakers thus far mentions Warburton. Posting a contract on his website would still not be a reliable source, and it would be completely unverifiable. Once the movie comes out with his name on it, or the production company officially releases something with his name on it, DO NOT add it back into the article. Further attempts to do so without reliable sourcing will be removed. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Surrey Wildlife Trust

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

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

Deletion of Media Diversity Institute page

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

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

To the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimate muscle

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

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

Must have been a cross-post - when I tagged it it was a massive cut-n-paste job from another page... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Her Name Is Murder Productions CSD

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

Actually, it was... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her Name Is Murder Productions was in March. It was also deleted yesterday, too. This will be the fourth time, according to the deletion logs. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Your attention needed for overuse and improper use of images

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

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

June 2011

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

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

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

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

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

6/28/2011

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

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

Contested CSD at Cinetic rights management

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)

Cease and Desist

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

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

Ard Doko Article

Dear MikeWazowski,

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

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

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

Kind Regards,

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

Hey MikeWazowski

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

Monsters University (2013 film)

Hi,

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

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

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

Monsters University

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

Unreferenced?

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

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

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

La Brea Tar Pits

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

Mel Blanc in 2011

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

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

CSD rationale

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

That looks to have been copied directly from Signal Corps in the American Civil War#Confederate Signal Corps - I'm betting we'll find the entire article is cut'n'pasted from other existing articles... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article is most certainly an anachronism and no such organization existed. That said, I would recommend AFD for the article. As yet, this user has not been adding citations on any of their contributions and it is time they start. A few of the articles they have created remain unreferenced.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

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

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

Anne Rice

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

prods

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)

Jkinzler777

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Mike, Thank you for you concern. Sir, this is a 16 year old girl we are talking about. Her accomplishments cannot be put on the internet. And Sir this is middle east so you know there will not be so much popularity in worldwide. I am trying to show that there are hidden talents among us. I have provided a link where she was interviewed by an esteemed Newspaper Times Of Oman. Her Accomplishments listed here are very little. She has a CGPA of 10 in her 10th year of study. So please Sir, and this is my first article so it can have mistakes. She is not a celebrity, but I can guarentee you Sir that all the mentioned ones are real. So please reconsider. Yours Sincerely, Anoop Teddy2020 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Mouse

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

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

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

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

Fine!

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

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Pixilated Theory

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

Propplan

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

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

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

Well, first off you should not be doing this on your userpage - that's a clear violation of policy, and you could get blocked if you continue to recreate it there. A better plan would be to work on it in your userspace, such as User:Nongplubplub/Propplan before moving that back to an article when you think it's ready. However, I noticed that Propplan has already been speedy deleted once, so you need to be sure that you have valid references indicating notability and significant coverage - not just existence - otherwise you'll find it probably going down the same path again. Good luck. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarity. Umm... I know this is going to be tough to answer, but how do they measure notability and coverage? Any ideas? Nongplubplub (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Try reading verifiability and notability guidelines for starters. You're looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, you must know everything. Just learning Wikipedia syntax is difficult for me. Thanks for the responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nongplubplub (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, just been around a while... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Violin concertos

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked?

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

64.241.37.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Vietcongpropaganda". The reason given for Vietcongpropaganda's block is: "Disruptive editing".

• Blocking administrator: NawlinWiki (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: cleared — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, I got caught up in someone else's auto-block - please fix this... MikeWazowski (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! MikeWazowski (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Shrinking Violets/Shrinking Violets

Hi Mike

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

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

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

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

Memphis tags

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

Ablaze! (Fanzine)

Hi Mike

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

I've removed any 'peacock' terms.

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

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

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

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

I'm not selling anything.

Regards

Ross Holloway

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

Payne & Redemption (2012 film)

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

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

Beetlejuice

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

Padawan Menace & Star Wars TV Specials

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

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

No, it's not. That template is for in-universe content, which this "special" is not. It does not belong there. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This one is in-universe based on the reported plot. It takes place within the continuity of The Clone Wars 2008 animated series, just in lego form. There is nothing about what is reported that would make it out of universe like the web shorts. And it should not be confused with the webshorts, these are produced by a entirely different animation house. One that does feature files like Happy Feet. Jyenor86 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no way a Lego film can be in-universe. And the animation house has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, when they call something a "standalone" that features "situations, characters and locations from throughout the entire Star Wars saga", that's telling you it's out of continuity. Do not add it back into the template. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed Edd n Eddy: EDventures

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

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

HBO/Cinemax

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

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

Peter Haynes

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

Knight Communications

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

Could you please explain to me the reasoning?

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

Imagine Prep at Coolidge

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

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

Speedy deletion declined: Moe Aung Yin

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

By the way, is your name a reference to Monsters, Inc.? Every time I see your username, a scene from that movie plays in my head and I laugh. Danger (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep - lost an eye when I was a kid, so ol' one-eyed Mike seemed appropriate. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Snake Variant

I'm very aware of the nofollow rule for external links. I'm also are that this isn't a place for advertisement. However, all I did was add another variant to the list. There's not a variant like it, so I would think it would be a good contribution. It's no different from any of the other external links, so why the removal? Kolto101 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No response. Why won't you respond so we can work this out? Kolto101 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd G12

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

I think it's the other way around - the page creator has already identified himself on the article talk page as a COI editor acting on behalf of the subject of the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't remember seeing that, but maybe I forgot to check. --SPhilbrickT 17:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my userpage

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

July 2011

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

Sorry for the template which appeared in this way. I assumed it would have been similar to other Speedy deletion declined templates. Ryan Vesey contribs 22:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the article, your tagging is a little excessive. First, consider using {{Multiple issues}}. Second, many of the issues you have tagged it with require discussion on the talk page yet you brought nothing up. Finally, consider bringing the article to AFD if you think it is not notable instead of discouraging the editor by slamming the article with tags. Ryan Vesey contribs 03:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You also added a copyright issue template on the page but did not follow any of the instructions for filing. I went ahead and did it for you but in the future please follow all instructions. Ryan Vesey contribs 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your comment that I "have it out for that article", it's not personal - however, I've noticed a pattern of promotion, copyright infringements, claims made that the citations do not back up, and dubious references from unreliable sources. Something seems *very* suspicious about that article. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the user brought the issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Sorry for accusing you of "having it out for the article" but I found your repeated tagging with no attempt to improve the article or give information to the author counter productive. Ryan Vesey contribs 19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Veronica Grey Edits

Mike -

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

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

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

Not Advertising

I am not advertising for Wrath Gate or Cryptozoic I've provided information about the realease as it is and intend to add better content to it. I have stated in the discussion and edit contents that I am looking to improve this and that I requested help in making it better. I would accept any help, and request that people cease to insist on deletion. CrimsonOwl (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)CrimsonOwl

Richard Benson

Dear Mike, why you say that the page was created by myself? It isn't. Nanodotto (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent contributions

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

Why deletion

Why did you tag may article to deletion? All what I did was translating a german article in english because nextbike is a bike sharing which operates now international. I don´t understand the point - it is no advertising it is actually explaining on way of bike sharing - the system of this company. Chmu86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:LolaBunny.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Killer Love

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

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

Blanking of user space articles

WP:FAKEARTICLE does not say to blank user pages that may be questionable. Instead, if the article is an obvious fake, you should take the article to WP:MfD. I think you need to slow down with the blanking and assume a little more good faith on editors. As with many things, there are certain exceptions. Sockpuppets like the Mario96‎ sockpuppet you ran into are fair game (though they should really be tagged with {{db-g5}}). Spam should be tagged with {{db-spam}}. But if the user space page could reasonably be a user space draft, then you should probably leave it alone. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cieluza

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

Are you genuinely so cold as to immediately try to delete a group for helping people?  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping the skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE ANSWER ME! I want no trouble. Do I have to get on my knees and beg? please stop targeting Cieluza for deletion! please!  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping the skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I only see you creating useless categories and pages. If you disagree, please make your case in the appropriate forums. I won;t be doing any actual deletions - that will be up to administrators to decide after the discussion ends. Also, please try to be civil when communicating with others - calling people "genuinely so cold" ain't helping. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. WHY????? Why won't you give my group a chance?  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping the skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of me answering your question did you not read? Please stop posting these pleas on my talk page, and make your case for inclusion, if you have one, on the appropriate discussion pages. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Confused

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

I think you may need to take a look at the fact that other editors (I'm not the only one) have removed your additions of regional Pittsburgh productions because they simply aren't notable - TheaterXYZ put on a version of a famous play? Not notable. TheaterXYZ put on a show that got significant coverage for something specific? Maybe. Your mass additions of nothing but local productions from a few minor theaters looked like spam, and not only to me. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well...I do recall two people removing edits of mine in the past, but as I look over my list of contributions, it seems that the majority of my edits have been removed by you. I don't mind if these contributions are removed on a case-by-case basis, but to remove all of them undermines dialogue, which I think is important. In the future, if you wish to remove one of my edits, could you please post that as a suggestion in the "Discussion" area of the article? I do understand that it may seem like I'm "selling" something; I completely understand that point of view. However, my point of view is that I'm revealing a great deal of theatrical activity that already exists that remains unknown to a great deal of the public. Many people are unaware that theatre exists on a high professional level in communities other than New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles; my wish is to increase knowledge of significant cultural activity outside of these specific communities. As Pittsburgh theatre is my "area of expertise," so to speak, I am updating articles from that point of view. I expect others who have knowledge of other theatrical communities to do the same. I have contributed information about theatre companies that are, for the most part, important contributors to Pittsburgh culture. Most of them have existed for many years and represent the way that many notable plays become known throughout the country. Without these kinds of theatres, the cultural cachet of many of these plays would die or become part of only an insular "New York"-based culture. To assert that these theatres are "minor" overlooks the important contributions they make to the fabric of American theatrical culture as a whole, in my opinion. I would not expect Wikipedia articles to list every movie theatre where a film is shown, but because each production of a play has unique qualities and arises out of a culture unique to any other location where it is performed, I would expect the Wikipedia article of a play to list a wide variety of regional productions. I understand that not everyone may agree with that opinion, but I would like to entertain dialogue as much as possible, since my understanding is that Wikipedia operates by consensus. To delete all of the contributions of a single Wikipedian indiscriminately seems to undermine that consensus, if I may respectfully disagree with you. So, like I said, if you disagree with one of my edits in the future, I would appreciate it if you would mention it on the "Discussion" page of the article before you make the deletion, and I will do my best to use the Discussion page more in my subsequent edits. Thank you!

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

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

New Email

Hello, MikeWazowski. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Will check the article's discussion page. Thanks! Ag644 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shopow

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shopow, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Steve Lieberman the Gangsta Rabbi

You gave me a speedy deletion warning.for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Lieberman_the_Gangsta_Rabbi&action=edit&redlink=1

as I was contesting--proving notability for the artist by your own guidelines--you deleted the page without even hearing my case. and you deleted my contestment because it linked to a deleted article. help

According to notability guidelines for musicians-a feature on the musician must have been featured in a major newspaper--the artist was featured-multiple times-in Newsday the 11th biggest paper in the US as well as many others. you also must have been signed and released 2 or more cd's by a major independent label-the artist was was-to JDub records who have 7 notables on their roster, including Matisyahu. i wrote to you immediately after speedy deletion warning was issued and the article was deleted before I pressed the send button. So you never even saw the contestments and that's upsetting. Are not the above satisfication of notable guidelines. I got it from this site. I'm confused613codify (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 613codify (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding spam links on Toropets

Dear Mike Wazowski,

Website http://archtoropets.ru doesn't have any commercial or advertise meaning. Mainly it represents information about Toropets historical sites, included in the list of national Russian heritage. The site published the unique information on the city of Toropets, archive's pictures from 19th century, the catalog of all heritage sites, etc. There is no such information on any other resource about this city. Of course, Historical society of Toropets also takes an active position on issue of perseverance of historical sites, but the purpose and 95% of the site content -- providing unique research information. Visit this resource and see for yourself (It has multi-language translator)

With best regards, Archtoropets.

Archtoropets (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mike,

You've contested a page on Trickshotting. I'd appreciate it if it did not get delete as it is entirely correct and explains Trickshotting at its core in video games. I actually think the page is quite factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreshKilljoy47 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

AKnight2B

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

My bad, then - although it's amazing how two restorations became six in his mind. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just one of several problems with that editor. Right now he is engaged in "admin shopping". Favonian (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I started an ANI thread regarding the Walkes and Gray AfDs you did, so here's notice just in case

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Soulside declined

I've declined speedy deletion here. Firstly, the band released four albums on Dischord Records, one of the most important US hadrcore/post-hardcore labels. Secondly, the band evolved into Girls Against Boys. These within the article make this totally unsuitable for speedy deletion via A7. If you search for sources on the band, there's plenty out there, including several Google Books results.--Michig (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Matthew D. Sacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, not a one of the references are from independent publications discussing Sacks, but to articles written by Sacks - therefor this tag was also accurate and placed correctly.MikeWazowski (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

these are not reasons for deletion, they are maintenance tags, and they most defintely apply --[User:MikeWazowski]

I disagree in that these maintenance tags are applicable. I have provided justified reasoning why they do not apply. If you cannot support your decision for applying these tags then they will continue to be rejected. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Louella romano (talk • contribs)

The Soska Sisters

Mike, just so that there's no surprises, you're at 3 reverts on The Soska Sisters (2 reverts trying to reinforce the redirect, one revert to maintain the tags). While you may well be correct, just be sure you don't cross 3RR. Since there is clearly disagreement about whether or not this is a notable subject, if you run WP:BEFORE and don't find any more sources, I recommend taking it to WP:AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mike A. Males page

To Mike Wazowski

I'm the mmales who edited the Mike A. Males page. I didn't set up this page and only noticed it a couple of years ago. I've confined my edits to updating material (ie, new location, new publications) and providing citations and references as requested. I don't believe any of my changes and additionsrepresent a conflict of interest, in that no subjective opinions were introduced. I appreciate concern over conficts, but I wonder if the changes could be restored in the intersts of accuracy. thank you, Mike Males Mmales (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)