User talk:Mike V

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

Welcome to my Talk Page!

Symbol support vote.svg
You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite! I'll try to reply where the conversation has started. That way it keeps things in one place. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.

Improper Deletion[edit]

Thank you for your time but you deleted the Young Gucci Kurrly page claiming it was my self page! This us not true Young Gucci Kurrly has changed music and the rap game in Atlanta and is historic to the city of Atlanta! So saying this is a self page is disrespectful and discrimination! Young Gucci Kurrly deserves to get his page back many people worked to get someone who has done so much a page! So please undo the delete for this is important history in a young life in Young Gucci Kurrly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarcus23 (talkcontribs) 03:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that the admin who deleted the page was Shirt58. However, I would have to agree with the deletion rationale. Also, the article wasn't neutral in tone and appears to be too promotional. I would recommend that you read about how to create your first article. You may also ask for assistance at the Wikipedia teahouse, a place where new users can have their questions answered. Mike VTalk 03:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Shame on you[edit]

I'm disgusted that you would encourage an editor to use baseless allegations of socking to influence the outcome of a debate. You should be ashamed of yourself. Tony (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you're extrapolating my comments. I only stated that there's a chance the IPs could be connected, it's by no means definitive. Adding an SPA template to a new or anonymous user is often performed, even in cases where there isn't any sockpuppetry involved. To quote from the SPA page, "... many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored causes, which is not allowed. ... The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." This doesn't mean that the user's contributions should be discounted, only that additional scrutiny may be required when evaluating the close of the discussion. I only recommended a tag be placed and that an administrator take it into consideration. This does not necessarily equate to striking the comment. It's quite possible that the closing admin will see no concern and treat the comment on equal level as everyone else. Mike VTalk 05:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of being accused of being Tony1's sock again, I have to side with Tony1 on this, at least as to the issue if not his tone. There was nothing at all about either of those IP posts that suggested "edit[ing] for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored causes", and the comments were clearly WP-wise, and salient, i.e. those of "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines". They were also clearly not SPA meatpupppets canvassed to come to WP and comment, since they (me, and whoever the other one was) knew what they were talking about, and did not take any weird WP:ADVOCACY stance. The closer of an RM or other process will determine whether they think sockpuppetry is happening; they don't need you to encourage an already inflammatory party to the debate to go on some SPI witchhunt. In this particular instance, and pretty much by accident, it has worked out okay because it backfired and made the complainant look like an ass, but it could have derailed an RM with paranoid nonsense, for no benefit to the discussion or the community. WP:AGF is a policy for a reason, and anon editing is permitted under policy for several reason (not wanting to login with a password via an insecure connection was the one I was availing myself of when I posted, FYI; it's important that we not expose our passwords). If the closer isn't competent to detect sockpuppetry, we have WP:MR for various reasons, too, and reviewing questionable closes is the primary one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhannigan SPI[edit]

Hi, thanks for taking a look at this debate. Since you seem to be experienced in these sort of investigations, do you mind opining on the allegation that this SPI was initiated in bad faith, as alleged by both accused accounts? EvanBlass (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bump @Mike_V EvanBlass (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I haven't forgot about the case. There are a few things that I'm considering before it's closed. Mike VTalk 22:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for the bump. EvanBlass (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike_V, in light of the comment recently posted by Mhannigan and directed toward you (here[1]), I wanted to send you a personal note to say again that Mhannigan is not me, and I most certainly do not condone Mhannigan's rant. I consider the rant highly inappropriate. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed and done with and I will not comment on it further. Thank you for your help in the investigation. Wikigeek2 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica[edit]

I see no reason why you block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica Furthermore, no reason why in the infobox, you left a website that is not poniting the right place, as in WHED IAU (UNESCO Listing) http://www.whed.net/detail_institution.php?id=17738 Acording to the listing the website is www.unem.edu.pl — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolandMEC (talkcontribs) 20:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the page because there is an edit war occurring with the article. Please discuss any proposed changes on the article's talk page. Mike VTalk 20:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I already sent the email to either permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and permissions-en@wikimedia.org I also mentioned should be communicated to you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_V As mentioned Earlier I am the Copyright holder for UNEM and Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica To use the file in a wiki, copy this text into a page: Universidad Empresarial Copyright Certificate To link to it in HTML, copy this URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica.jpg And the authorization for publish the logo To use the file in a wiki, copy this text into a page: Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica Logo To link to it in HTML, copy this URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UNEM_logo_Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica.jpg

I hereby strongly request that the article must mention my website www.unem.edu.pl or if you want a local domain www.unem.cr Please remove bad publicity ASAP PolandMEC (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC) PolandMEC


Furthermore, I own the COPYRIGHT for UNEM and Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. Please provide an email where I can send you propper documents info@unem.edu.pl — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolandMEC (talkcontribs) 20:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read and follow the directions on the page here to release your text under the appropriate license. Mike VTalk 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What I am supposed to present if a Copyright certificate with 9 years old expedition, mentioning POLAND (Domain dot EDU DOT PL) meaning www.unem.edu.pl is NOT GOOD ENOUGHT for you??? Furthermore the published article is infamous and harm University reputation. So, what I ask is the article to be unprotected or editedPolandMEC (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for all your work on the electoral commission. You combined technical proficiency with excellent communication, even in the face of some glitches, and for that you ought to be commended. Thank your for facilitating a smooth election. Go Phightins! 02:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words! It was a pleasure to help out. Mike VTalk 02:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muffin Wizard 2[edit]

Mike, can you deal with this case? This user seems didn't stop to create more of his socks and do a personal attack toward other users. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 13:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about SPI[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if the SPI is going to last much longer. This has been ongoing for more than 11 weeks now, and the last 11 days at SPI have been quite stressful. Can you give me some idea of how long these things usually last, because I was expecting a couple of days, not a couple of weeks. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand that it can be frustrating that the process takes a long time. Unfortunately, this case is more nuanced than most. I hope to close the case soon. Mike VTalk 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, Dan56 hasn't made any effort in the last several days to add to his accusations, so can I ask what it is that I am waiting for? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I hate to bug you, as you've been so patient with this whole thing, but could you please come over to my talk and help me understand what's expected of me regarding the IBAN? Thanks. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey, thanks Mike. You really did a lot of the work for this election and were on top of everything. Appreciate your expertise.--v/r - TP 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciated your guidance from your past experience on the commission. Mike VTalk 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you so much for ending my long national nightmare lol and finally giving my FAC the opportunity it deserved the first time. Good riddance to Jazzerino's latest sock, cheers to you! Dan56 (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

 Revi 14:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and I wish you happy holidays as well. Mike VTalk 22:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

REquest for Editing or deletion of Article Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica[edit]

What I am supposed to present if a Copyright certificate with 9 years old expedition, mentioning POLAND (Domain dot EDU DOT PL) meaning www.unem.edu.pl is NOT GOOD ENOUGHT for you??? Furthermore the published article is infamous and harm University reputation. So, what I ask is the article to be unprotected or editedPolandMEC (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

An OTRS volunteer should be in contact with you soon to finalize the permission release. I would encourage you to address your concerns on the article talk page with our community of editors. Mike VTalk 22:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ACE election coordinators[edit]

Hi, who were the coordinators for the 2014 ACE? I don't see their names listed anywhere on ACE pages, although I did find the list of the stewards who scrutinized the results. Thanks, --Pine 20:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The list of coordinators can be found here and the RfC to select the coordinators is here. Mike VTalk 22:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --Pine 09:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Rationalobserver[edit]

Hi Mike, there are several messages for you at User talk:Rationalobserver, expressing concern about the block, just to make sure you see them. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied on the talk page. Mike VTalk 22:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for dealing with this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. :) Mike VTalk 01:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: Rationalobserver[edit]

Why was Rationalobserver unblocked? I don't understand. You had the evidence, then changed your mind? Dan56 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some details that I can't elaborate upon on-wiki. For now, Rationalobserver has agreed to not interact with you and she has requested that you do the same. It might be best to honor that. Mike VTalk 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, so a possible sock has tainted my FAC, and I cant even let that be known ([2]) without being blocked? Brilliant :/ Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Am I allowed to alter my own comments at an FAC, like I did here? Because I was just blocked for that, by an editor mind you who personally disagreed with the evidence at the SPI ([3]) :/ Dan56 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's generally best practice to not alter an archive. If you are concerned about an involved action, that's a whole separate matter which you should discuss with the admin who blocked you. Mike VTalk 03:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's some more behavioral evidence: "...I did contribute as an IP for a couple of years...", "... I first edited Wikipedia about 10 years ago as an IP..." Dan56 (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

FTR, Sergecross73 warned Dan56 that "If I find you're throwing out accusations at any more new venues, you're going to be blocked for harassment" and Chillum told him, "At this point the only remaining acceptable location to make accusations of sock puppetry against Rationalobserver is at WP:SPI with evidence. Further accusations outside this venue or without evidence may be interpreted at a personal attack." Dan56 has now accused me twice more since the SPI case (here). I view this as harassment and personal attacks. Will you please help to end this? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, I do wish Dan56 would drop it and move on to something more constructive, but I don't believe its out of line to discuss things here, considering Mike V was so heavily involved in the SPI. I do believe that even his "new evidence" is still extremely weak though. Many many editor start off editing as an IP. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe such an experienced editor can put together such a weak case, which leads me to think he's too absorbed in all of this to think clearly... Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

UNEM Website listed acording to UNESCO IAU listing http://www.whed.net/detail_institution.php?id=17738[edit]

I see no reason why been myself the only side (part) that is willing to provide documents, as the Copyright certificate, and mention the IAU WHED listing whed.net/detail_institution.php?id=17738 you are not willing to edit the page for Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. Furthermore, the other part never provide a single argument. And I see no neutrallity but you protected the article keeping the edition made by UNEMCR. If you look the Article history, it always since the begining point to www.unem.edu.pl I must request that if you are not willing to edit, please earse the whole article, as it was before proposed to be deleted. What I am supposed to present if a Copyright certificate as the one I already presented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica.jpg with 9 years old expedition, mentioning POLAND (Domain dot EDU DOT PL) meaning www.unem.edu.pl is NOT GOOD ENOUGHT for you??? Furthermore the published article is infamous and harm University reputation. So, what I ask is the article to be unprotected, edited or deleted ASAPPolandMEC (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Super Sentai[edit]

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Mike V, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
LADY LOTUSTALK 19:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mike V. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 07:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fair use[edit]

I note that you declined my deletion request for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_July_1983_Colombo.jpg.

Please take into account the following authorities and the attributed links/authorities. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Colombo_Hilton_at_Night.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama

This is a photograph taken in Sri Lanka and therefore must comply with Sri lankan intellectual property act. Which states that photographs of buildings are prohibited and protected as copyright unless explicit authority of the designer is given --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 20:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. However, Commons and Wikipedia have different standards for images. Commons only allows users to upload free images, whereas Wikipedia allows for copyrighted images to be used as long as there is a valid fair use rationale provided. Thus the image is not permitted on Commons, but is on Wikipedia. Mike VTalk 20:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." The use of the image on the article is not permitted by 'fair use' because the image takes over the original market role of the copyright holders, and does not go towards any commentary on the photographer or the image itself rather the events it depicts. I will make the image for deletion under false fair use template --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monster boy1[edit]

The user and its IPs you blocked during this are back and doing the same sorts of nonsense edits as before. Some of the edits are potentially constructive, but many others are annoying at best and mess up proper categorization. They also continue to use the three separate accounts in violation of multiple account policy. I'd appreciate if you could take a look (or direct me to where I should report). Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)