This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Mike Rosoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived discussions:

Redirect from hoax page "Hamlet of Denmark"

Hello Mike Rosoft! I just wanted to point out that the redirect that you created from Hamlet of Denmark should point to Prince Hamlet (which is the article dedicated to the character) and not to Hamlet. Best regards! LowLevel73(talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought about it, but the play also has King Hamlet, the ghost. (I have no preference either way; if you believe Prince Hamlet would have been a better target, I might reduce the protection for a while, so that you can change it.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I confess that I have absolutely no idea about how to find whether people who search for "Hamlet of Denmark" are more interested in the prince or in the king. I would say the prince, but it would be only a conjecture. Given the ambiguous nature of the expression, your choice seems the most reasonable. Sorry if I didn't give a better thought on it before contacting you. Cheers! LowLevel73(talk) 22:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why my page has been deleted?

I want to know what was wrong about the last page i've created: Making Sense. I want to republish it, what do I have to change?

Thanks. Lcaltabiano (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Supremacism (My Awakening to the Jewish Question)

Hi @Mike Rosoft: please explain where the text is promotion of the book and the ideas contained in the book? In the first time is better that define the portion of text that had problem. AliAkar (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Considering the draft presents a hateful and insane conspiracy theory by a white supremacist as if it were factual? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Ian.thomson: Please talk about Wikipedia rules and do not tell insult word. I say that this is not a valid reason for speed deletion. The admin must stated it in talk page until solved. AliAkar (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft:Please reply to my question. Do is G11 rule in speed deletion? AliAkar (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The draft presented lies by a known conspiracy theorist as "meticulously research." To call that promotional is better than that deserves.
WP:G11 says that "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" is to be speedily deleted. The lies David Duke wrote were promoted as "meticulously research." Ian.thomson (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: You have a personal problem with this book and the idea of the author. Please observe the rules and don't tell loose talk. This is your idea about this book that is a lies but many people in the world are against to your idea. I decided to edit this subject and submit in this page. AliAkar (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft: In the content and purpose of book sections, I selected and wrote several sentence from this book. So, I think some people had against idea with it. I want introduce this book just and i had not any goal. please explain about text and say where have problem? AliAkar (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @AliAkar:: User:Ian.thomson already explained to you what was wrong with the article; so did I on your talk page. The article largely repeats the claims made by the book as a fact. And if an article about a books starts by calling it "a meticulously research" [sic], it starts wrong. See the policy of neutrality and "What Wikipedia is not". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft:: I can change this sentence and remove this adverb. Can you restore this page until fix this section? AliAkar (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • No, I am not going to restore the article. In any case, I didn't delete it because of a minor grammar error; I deleted it because it promoted the book and its ideas. Even removing the sentence in question wouldn't change the fact.

    As far I am concerned, there is nothing to discuss here; if you still believe that the article shouldn't have been deleted, please go to deletion review. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Mike Rosoft::This is a important book in the world about Jewish people but not all Jewish people. This book said about the people that have Supremacism act. Therefore, you must think about introduction of book and help to fix it not delete it. please restore it until edit it.

AliAkar (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Mike Rosoft:: Hey, I write again about this subject and publish it but you can not delete my draft page. You have self interest with this book. I solve this problem and publish this subject again.

AliAkar (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@AliAkar: Actually read the article David Duke. Notice that he's known as "white nationalist, conspiracy theorist," and "advocate of antisemitic conspiracy theories." That means that he believes that white people are superior to everyone else -- so his claims about anyone else being supremacist are going to be lies. He's also a conspiracy theorist, so his claims about history and sociology are going to be lies, too. He's also an antisemite, so anything he writes about Jews are going to be lies, too. Just because he quoted the Talmud does not mean he quoted it in context. If you refuse to understand this, I will go to WP:ANI and see if we can arrange a topic ban for you. Mike and I are not the ones with a personal problem here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ian.thomson:: I read the Duke website and many part of his book but I tried to stated and introduced the book not Duke's idea. Therefore, I edited the text and try again until introduce the book not Duke's idea.

AliAkar (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@AliAkar: You're still calling it "influential," downplaying the fact that Duke is a notorious conspiracy theorist and white supremacist, and claiming "Jewish Supremacism must be authentic." I'm going to the administrator's noticeboard to request a topic ban because you obviously have a bias supporting the book's hateful lies. EDIT: I've made the thread.
Mike, I've mentioned you in the ANI thread "Topic ban on Jews and Judaism needed for AliAkar". Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Store Twenty One

Hello there. I was going to create Store Twenty One, but discovered that it had previously existed and had been removed deleted by yourself (I think). The notice suggested that I contact the administrator who deleted the page. Store Twenty One has about 200 shops in the UK and c.£100m annual turnover and I think is fairly notable chain on the British high street. I wanted to read up on it and was surprised no page existed. Is it possible to see the version of the page that previously existed? I might be able to add more useful content. Thanks. Seaweed (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I have restored the article, but it's almost devoid of content. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of government works


@Mike Rosoft: Thanks for your attention to this matter. If we and also administrator of the website don't know the copyright holder of a photo, what should we do for upload this photo in commons?

AliAkar (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


how do I revert edit? I notice some vandalisms. The N gamer (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, how do I redirect a page? The N gamer (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked! The N gamer (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

N game

What do you think about an image I added on an N game article, since it wasn't illustrated? The N gamer (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the objects in the game together that makes it look like letters. The N gamer (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And the link doesn't work, so it's not really a spam. The N gamer (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I am not interested in verifying if it's really the case, but even if that's the case, so what? It's still an unfree screenshot that can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and it does not meaningfully illustrate the article. Try a full screenshot of the game's title screen, or the like, and upload it to Wikipedia instead. See the unfree content/fair use policy. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter wiki

Someone mentioned your username on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cncnchch (talkcontribs) 02:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Update crime groups Philippines listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Update crime groups Philippines. Since you had some involvement with the Update crime groups Philippines redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Mostafiz32

You warned him - I've indeffed him. This 'Toyota' thing is an ongoing spam campaign posted by SPAs. Whether Toyota themselves are behind it or not I don't know. I block 'em on sight now. Might inconvenience them a bit. 8-) Peridon (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Re Principality of Sealand

Hi I was just wondering why the page I was writing was deleted. The gathering ireland 2013 was a significant event and the Principality played a role in it in the East of Ireland. I believe this makes it notable. Further there is a lack of material about it on wikipedia. I respect your authority on the matter however I do request access to the material submitted and I ask for a chance to finish the article and to submit it for inspection.Dickscawed (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Economics of nuclear power plants

Look Rosoft, I disappointed that you keep editing out my attempts to put balance in the economics of nuclear power plants. Why can Quiggin be quoted and not Sachs? Why does a philosophy professor like Lowe get quoted? Why "However, nuclear supporters continue to champion reactors, often with proposed new but largely untested designs, as a source of new power." Surely, "There are a large number of exciting proposals for new reactors which exemplify the great promise that nuclear fission shows in providing abundant cheap energy" for more accurately reflects the scientific consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talkcontribs) 07:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Responded on the user's talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not accept that adding balance, ie adding Sachs to Quiggin is doing anything other than adding balance. the Quiggin quote is not balanced At the moment it quotes Quiggins and Lowe, and none else. if you'd actually looked at the talked page I flagged putting the more accurate version, and noe complained. I asked plazak to render it more neutral, my suggestion was ""There are a number proposals for new reactors which could possibly deliver electricity at a lower price. Some of these have only undergone preliminary testing. "There are a number proposals for new reactors which could possibly deliver electricity at a lower price. Some of these have only undergone preliminary testing." You never write on the talk page, you've never offerred any alternative wordings. I've gone to the help page to try and get someone to arbitrate. Why on Earth don't you accept adding sachs to Quiggin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Graemem56: I have already told you why your addition was unacceptable (both on your talk page and at Talk:Economics of nuclear power plants): you can't add statements of opinion to the article, or call anybody a fake expert. The wording you proposed here is better.

    When your proposed change was rejected (both by me and by other users - see the history of the article), the next thing to do is not to make the same edit once again; instead, you should go to the talk page and actually discuss the change - not, as I have also said on your talk page, just state your position and then go ahead with the change. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rob Furlong's Marksmanship Academy - Don't understand why you deleted

I have no idea why this was deleted.

You put down No claim of notability (WP:CSD#A7) - company

This company is very similar to Academi, I am not sure how else it could be "notable", how should I be wording this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake Prince (talkcontribs) 03:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Explained some basics on his page. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

MIKE MIKE - You have replied to the wrong piece, you replied to a nuclear plant page when I was asking about Rob Furlong's Marksmanship academy. Can you please tell me how I can get my page back up, I don't understnad why it was taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I think User:Ian.thomson explained it on your talk page. The criterion is WP:CSD#A7: failure to make a claim of importance or significance. The article was about a very new organization, and the only information it provided was that the organization exists and what kind of services it provides. Most importantly, it cited no third-party references; coverage in reliable third-party sources is the primary notability criterion. (See the notability (inclusion) guidelines for companies and organizations.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think your company can compare to Academi (formerly known as Blackwater), either. Academi/Blackwater has received numerous contracts from the U.S. government during its wars, as well as notoriety for Blackwater Baghdad shootings and other incidents. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Respected Mike Rosoft, have you received my e-mail sent at tiscali Nannadeem (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC). Please now ignore this message.Nannadeem (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

recent revert on Britain first page

after seeing the edit you made to my added section on Britain first, you may want to check your facts before removing relevant information, Maybe read the facts first and then revert your changes back again to reflect the facts! Scott28280 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

At least i know that wikipedia is written by the people, for the people, but the information is not based on true facts, i will be sure to let everyone know how facts are removed by moderators because they are relevant, but not "relevant to the subject" of the page, that's me done with wikipedia now that i know that facts are withheld due to relevance, the same as Britain First page has ALOT of information on it that is not relevant to the page itself, wikipedia should be closed down for this oversight, linking to groups and websites that are made by racist factions that are known to be active in extremism, by leaving the information on wikipedia, you and wikipedia are supporting extremism and racism, everyone needs to know this!! i will be sure to spread the word, spread the Britain First facebook page and wikipedia article so people can see what they are and so they know what wikipedia is supporting by allowing the information in the article to remain on the website.

Scott28280 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AliAkar keeps trying to promote David Duke's book

I've started an ANI thread asking for a topic ban again. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft:You tell several reasons for delete the Jewish book and said contradictory reason. I said that you can add negative opinion to the article. But you have personal problem with the subject. You said I wrote lies sentences about David but accused me to partially copied from David Duke. I think you have POV problem more than me.AliAkar (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @AliAkar: I have no idea what you mean; I don't recall saying anything you say I did. I have deleted the article Jewish Supremacism (My Awakening to the Jewish Question) because it promoted the book and ideas therein, and also noted that its contents were partially copied from the main article David Duke. I have never accused you of telling lies about David Duke. And you can't add your personal opinion to any article, positive or negative. Wikipedia articles need to be written in a neutral and factual manner; in other words, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Yes, the article David Duke contains material that doesn't cast him in a very favorable light; for example, it says that he has been found guilty of fraud and describes him as a proponent of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. That's not an opinion of a particular editor; rather, it's referenced by means of multiple reliable sources. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @AliAkar: I now see what you are talking about: the comment "You presented David Duke's hateful and insane lies as truth, and you're putting it into mainspace. Notice that most people here supported banning you from editing articles relating to Judaism, and that no one has defended your draft." The comment wasn't written by me; rather, it's by User:Ian.thomson. But I still don't see how it contradicts anything I said. I have been more cautious and described the problems with the article in the terms of Wikipedia policies (WP:SOAP and WP:CSD#G11). Ian.thomson went as far as to describe the article as hate speech, presented as a fact. (So no, he wasn't talking about lies about David Duke, but rather David Duke's lies about Jews.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Curious why you've deleted page Escalante: The Best Teacher in America, was it beyond repair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muserna Muserna (talkcontribs) 01:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Muserna Muserna: Yes, it was; it had no meaningful content at all, and as you can see from the deletion log, I have deleted it as an editing experiment. I make no judgement on the notability of this book about Jaime Escalante; if you want to create the article, go right ahead. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Directed-energy weapon

Tried looking for sources on the ethics of it, all I found right away were:

There seems to be a bit of overlap between them, I'm thinking I'd only get a few sentences out of it all. Still, think it'd be worthwhile? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

AFD message regarding

Hello Mike, May I know why my article "ScholarGeek" is considered for deletion? Balaji E.M (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Balaji E.M: You could have found out by looking at the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScholarGeek. First, the article fails to establish the subject's notability (see the notability guidelines); it is mostly sourced to press releases and the like. Second, you have confessed to have created the article for hire; paid editing is frowned upon on Wikipedia. (I have decided not to mention the latter fact in the deletion debate and instead judged it on its own merits; still, it appears to fail the inclusion/notability criteria.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Meme Generator

Hi Mike, I'm A.Minkowiski, I tagged this under CSD#7 and I think this page has been recreated manytime before too. Have you ever come across this page before ? Regards --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, what about this one ? --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I wanna create wikipedia for Azhar Sabri

I wanna create wikipedia for Azhar Sabri, which you have protected, so request you to release protection to create a notable article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrimam (talkcontribs) 03:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Mrimam: The article Azhar Sabri has been repeatedly deleted; after it was protected from re-creation, the author tried to avoid the protection by creating it at various other titles, and continued doing so using sockpuppets. I am not going to unprotect the article right now. You may want to instead create an article draft, and ask it to be moved to article space when it's complete; but seeing that you have created several articles which are only sourced to blog entries that you have written yourself, and which are now nominated for deletion, I would recommend you not to. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Mike. I wanted to let you know that I have blocked this editor as a sock puppet/evasion account. I have been examining this user’s recent creations and opened two AFDs because they had faked the sources. It was only today that I realized this account was created the day after you had blocked User:Sabriimam and they had immediately tried recreating the same article on Azhar Sabri as User:Laddanansari, User:Sabriimam, User:Waansari, etc. I think their contribution history is clear “duck” evidence — but I wanted to run it past you in case their is something I am missing. CactusWriter (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)