Jump to content

User talk:Mike Rosoft: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Response
Fairfax49 (talk | contribs)
67 edits
No edit summary
Line 243: Line 243:
I would like to add in a piece on the [[International Whisky Competition]] to the [[Spirits ratings]] article. What I had in mind would be similar to the [[San Francisco World Spirits Competition]] insertion. I notice that the article had some difficulty with spamming recently so I thought that I would clarify the situation with you first. [[User:Fairfax49|Fairfax49]] ([[User talk:Fairfax49|talk]]) 10:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add in a piece on the [[International Whisky Competition]] to the [[Spirits ratings]] article. What I had in mind would be similar to the [[San Francisco World Spirits Competition]] insertion. I notice that the article had some difficulty with spamming recently so I thought that I would clarify the situation with you first. [[User:Fairfax49|Fairfax49]] ([[User talk:Fairfax49|talk]]) 10:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
*{{ping|Fairfax49}} I think there'd be no problem with adding a section about a competition which already has an article on Wikipedia. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] ([[User talk:Mike Rosoft#top|talk]]) 04:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
*{{ping|Fairfax49}} I think there'd be no problem with adding a section about a competition which already has an article on Wikipedia. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] ([[User talk:Mike Rosoft#top|talk]]) 04:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

:: Thank you. [[User:Fairfax49|Fairfax49]] ([[User talk:Fairfax49|talk]]) 08:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:58, 20 April 2016

Archived discussions:

New article Cybersecurity Strategy

I was surprised to see you deleted this article for the reason that it is a duplicate of Computer Security! This is ludicrous. That is like saying the Mona Lisa (1517) is a duplicate of Lady with an Ermine (1490) by Leonardo da Vinci. Please reinstate the article, and try come up with a better reason, like your fellows who use notability as a good argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.103.86 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity nominated for deletion

I can't find the nomination for deletion for Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity. The link in your notice at the top of that page goes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capability Maturity Model Integration instead. (By the way I voted Keep there.) I reviewed a draft of one of the first of these cybersecurity model articles back in May, and tried my best to discourage the editor from continuing. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Not Quite Sure How To Use This Page But...

Thanks, Mike Rosoft. Thanks for marking the proposed Cẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'Cybḝriẫ page a [(Joke)]. I love Wikipedia and it's a pleasure to .meet. some of the people who make it, or prevent it happening. I have been cracking up all week over obscure encyclopaedist's in-humour. Wikipedia is very different from the inside. I am still reading submerged articles and finding my feet. I have used my first week here to go nuts and just find out what happens. I hope my editing is achieving the boldness required by Wikipedia and I am becoming increasingly aware of the problem of style. I am trying to develop rational ways of working within the system, so as not to overburden the infrastructure and I will re-jig my user page, which is becoming a bit unwieldy.Thanks.Cẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'CybḝriẫCẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'Cybḝriẫ 11:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KardinalCypher (talk • contribs) P.S. I will probably instal Wiki software so I can mess around to my heart's content and make my mistakes elsewhere. Such fun creating bogus articles. I can work on all the elements of style, without constantly nagging at Wikipedias servers. It's so easy to learn a to understand something of coding by using Wiki software.Cẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'Cybḝriẫ 11:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)But I did sign. It didn't work. I wrote my note in Notepad and I put four tildes on the end. So they don't show up if you don't do them in the Wikipedia environment. Sorry SineBot.Cẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'Cybḝriẫ 11:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KardinalCypher (talk • contribs) Now I understand.I made Cẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'Cybḝriẫ 11:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC), my signature.I better change that, or not. I'm not sure at the moment. Interesting.Cẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'Cybḝriẫ 11:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)talk Sorry. Just couldn't leave that e missingCẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'Cybḝriẫ 12:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)KardinalCypherCẫrdinẳl.Ṓ'Cybḝriẫ 12:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination and then your own redirect?

2015 Address Hotel fire. Please explain your impatience? If you nominate it for deletion while the article is being edited, and then redirect it before a discussion takes place...it seems bad faith.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Teagy deleted?

Dear Mike Rosoft

I am Lennie the maker of the page Teagy. You see I am just a kid and I worked very hard on making my wikipedia page. It meant alot to me. My mum and dad loved it and thought it was very good. I would really like it if you undid your deletion! :(

Thank You For Reading This! --Beastboy2004 (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for understanding. I am making the page again so I can take a photo of it and save it just in case it get's deleted again. :) --Beastboy2004 (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know it just was deleted but I managed to snap a pic of it. But thanks for the advice! --Beastboy2004 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xiadus

Why did you remove it? Boogers88 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My wiki article

allLanka.com
Why are you delete my page in wikipedia.? Nuwan Prasanna (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message

[insult removed]
Mind your own damn biz those pages had no quarrel with you ZechCool22 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZechCool22: It *is* my business to make sure that articles are not vandalized, don't have copyright violations introduced in them, or that other inappropriate material doesn't get posted. In fact, it's the business of every single Wikipedia user; Wikipedia, by its nature, relies on the volunteers in both writing of new articles and the maintenance tasks. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nurabad, Zaveh

Hi mr , that village is hossein abad , I born in it, I'm from iran , from hossein abad village, please change the name LosIGx (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IslamInSpanish

Note: If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.

Yes, please proivide me with the deleted material.--LatinoMuslim 06:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do so the article can stay on Wikipedia? --LatinoMuslim 04:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Start.me

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Start.me. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michieldewit (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Thank you for your help with the Yosemite litigation article. I screwed the pooch. How do use italics in an article title?Intermittentgardener (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NUSRAT MOBIL OYUNU - CANAKKALE

Dear Mike,

We were adding our 'NUSRAT MOBIL OYUNU' game to Wikipedia as a developer and publisher of this game in Turkey. As Turkey Republic Youth and Sport Ministry, we had prepared our Article and while editing it, it removed by you. Would you please explain the reason of deletion and recover our Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NusratOyunuÇanakkale (talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Deleted second attempt and explained things. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mahika sharma

Hii.. with all respect why is my contribution Mahika Sharma has been getting deleted again and again. One should google her before doing so. I request you to upload her wiki page again. She have all profesnl links. Thanks.. waiting for a posetive feedback Popopo222 (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if I removed all the inappropriate material, there would be sparsely anything left. One of the users in the previous deletion debate expressed an opinion that (paraphrased) if Wikipedia is to have an article about her, the best thing would be to delete it and start again from the scratch; I fully agree with this evaluation.

You can create a draft of the article at Draft:Mahika Sharma, or in your user space (such as User:Popopo222/Mahika Sharma). If you choose to give the article another try, please have a look at the inclusion (notability) guidelines for people. Coverage in reliable third-party sources is the primary criterion; also, the references must directly support the claims made in the article (see the policy of verifiability); you can't add your own personal interpretations. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I sincerely bestow this Barnstar of Diligence upon you for your thoroughness and carefulness to wikipedia,which moves me a lot. Warren Leywon (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turing Robotic Industries, Liquidmorphium, and Liquidmorphium Turing Phone

Hi, thx for your attention. Haven't finished yet. It is fresh and TRI Corp. is a start-up (like Jolla was a time ago, also nominated and deleted, finally defended, you can see history for Jolla article) so more sources will appear around April as that time is anounced launching the Liquidmorphium Turing phone. Note now mentioned sources has appeared some hours ago. The liquidmorphium as material of nanotechnology will be a problem in aspect of WPs as it is a technological secret, at last now it is. The 3rd source for 2 others I will add, however it will not be anything shining and nothing special. Still edited and under construction - yet next 24hrs, if you let me so. However curently existing sources are not impressive. Counter vandalism measures always welcome are ;) BTW: I have constant problem with I-don't-know-who adding adware-links to Microsoft products or technologies or anything about/around Microsoft even if completely unrelated to the article, like article about Linux related subjects. I evaluate this as intended vandalism toward to wiki-link everything in Wikipedia to Microsoft articles. I would like to pay your attention to this as this is my time wasting sabotage and really like an well-organised gang/mafia advertising Microsoft everywhere, and even if cleaned it is hard-rewriten again and again. Microsoft can afford to pay employees for putting their advertisments everywhere but I can't spend always time to clean it as then I have less and less time on e.g. looking for sources among other things in my life. Please treat this is as formal complaint against "Microsft everywhere advertisement" which is messing everywhere and is unstopable(?). Wikipedia slowly turns into the one biggest advertisement of Microsoft, and when cleaned it is coming back again and agin. please advice me what can I do to defend against this? As this is organised and systematic action of leaving Microsoft trash-links everywhere. Help against this sickness is very needed, and I think not only by me. Anyway thx for your help and attention. Ocexyz (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ocexyz: In that case, I suspect that it may be too early for you to create an article about the company and its products. (As I like to say, Wikipedia is meant to be compendium of existing knowledge, not a means of something known.) I'll give you a bit of time to finish the articles, but please note that coverage in reliable third-party sources is the primary inclusion criterion. (I have used Google to look for the name of the company; while there is a fair number of hits, quite a few of them look like press releases; such articles do not constitute independent coverage.)

    You say that some articles are being disrupted by adding links to Microsoft products. Could you name such articles (here or at the administrators' noticeboard) so that I or other users can have a look at it? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Rosoft: Yes, I know WP:TOOSOON, and I think it is not that case but a question of time spent on digging for serious or rather to say really added value/knowledge in quoted source then add any source complying formal WPs requirements. At this time all 3 have 3rd source added, however it is not everything but noteable, hence under construction still.
About Microsoft involved/related vandalism. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jolla&type=revision&diff=703166654&oldid=702327701 this link shows example I have removed yesterday. Jolla is independent entity established long time before the Elop effect in the Nokia, and years before fact of selling (rather grabbing IMHO) Nokia's R&D Dept to Microsoft. Definitely and absolutely it is not related anyhow with MS. This is marketing practices known from selling washing powder: In commercial, enywhere but especially in TV, must be mentioned name of product or producer/distributor. This is mass selling goods. There were serious and scientific researches that proved following. It doesn't meter if one concentrate on commercial or not. It is enough that product or company name will be noted even without aware understanding, as this leave slowly disappearing trace in one's memory, everyone's hearing or watching. This cause that going shoping that product or products of that advertised producer are noted and bought first then any others. Simply because it is recognised as something already known. One, you, already have seen it recently somewhere. Researches proved that turnover without that commercials decreases about 40% and doesn't meter how good or poor quality the good is. This "memory" must be sustained/renewed by repeating commercials/adverts otherwise the name will be forgotten. That is why in TV commercials of washing powder are repeated, with name of product or company. You are to remember it. But commercials in tv are paid. Here in Wikipedia Microsoft involved/related or simply employed in that particular aim individuals patrols wikipedia for money and leave as in above mentioned link. AND what is worse: any critical point of view or facts that shows Microsoft or Microsoft related products/companies in any different then positive light are excluded with comment "this is not encyclopedic" or similar. Even when it is well sourced with 3rd party source. In contrary to this there are many sites that pretends unrelated to Microsoft which are in fact related or paid by Microsoft that are created ONLY in aim to provide sources looking like 3rd party - however this is hard to prove, but it happened. Here you have example https://www.microsoft.com/northafrica/careers/positions/de.htm I had linkt to one that was clearly stated "edit new or existing wikipedia content" or very similat to this, that was Microsoft evangelist without "technical". Sorry can't find it at this moment to prove it. But I observe this from many years and there are no place or mechanism (that I know about) to report it. I claim wikipedia is used as a kind of blog to place commercials/adverts for Microsoft marketing. And also Microsoft marketing goals justify censoring Wikipedia content from reliably sourced facts that are not comfortable for Microsoft. eg. there is no "Elop effect" article, however "Osborn effect" is common case, but steven Elop is coowner of Microsft as 7th private owner of Microsoft papers in the World. Elop effect has been removed from wikipedia, period. In Lumia phones there are no facts about problems and (sourced ones 3rd party ones!) as they were wiped, not comfortable for Microsoft marketing. Eg.: that first 4 Lumia models were using Windows in BETA phase, so not a finished product, so buyer was betatester for Microsoft for free and was paying for not finished product WITHOUT being informed or aware about this. Source: one day Microsoft has made a statement they have finished betatests of Windows in Lumias, made 3-4 years after first model launch. Primary source but reliable as made upon law requirements for the Wall Street. Wiped. You will not find even a word about this. This is constant problem with Microsoft advertisement and marketing propagated in Wikipedia, just as washing powder in TV. Problem is also that I am one and Microsoft evangelists payed for editting wikipedia are plenty. Before I have no chance to say about this to admins, if you have any advice please let me know. please also let other in admins community to know there is such a problem. Wikipedia loose neutral point of view when Microsoft is involved and is evangelising wikipedia.
Now I can look for more sources ;) have a nice day. Ocexyz (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ocexyz: I see that you are making general accusations with little to back it up. I see that the article Elop effect has been deleted as a neologism without third-party references, and redirected to Stephen Elop, where his (mis-)statement is covered. But thanks for bringing the page to my attention; I have fixed the redirect to section.

    As for the Microsoft Lumia, I have no time at the moment to check the entire history of the article to find out exactly at what point was the claim added or removed. In any case, who made the statement? When did he make it? Did some third-party newspaper or website cover it? (If not, then we have nothing but your say-so; see the policy of verifiability.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Rosoft: Thx for your attention and time again. My opinion is general describes last few years of what was happening around articles related directly or indirectly with big player as Microsoft, so more then a dozen - and note well again: I am a single person only. Microsoft hire full time or a part time a small army of focused only on advertising Microsoft and remove anything critical or not purely positive for Microsoft and related entities/products/brands. Even a Windows related will be a full bucket. eg. in Wikipedia maintains FULL list of Microsoft products which s not possible to create in that shape w/o internal data from company provided by employees I think, especially when most are unsourced at all. You can try some of following List of Microsoft software List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft where are 3rd party sources? Note there are none a word about acquisition of Nokia's R&D dept, or other companies that felt down in consequence of cooperation and agreement with Microsoft in mobile market and then in part or in the whole were overtaken (so in form of acquisition exactly!) Compare source here: http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/11/in-memoriam-microsofts-previous-strategic-mobile-partners/ BTW: just writing here I have realised that was used as source and I have used this as a source, but now looking for in wikipedia there is not such a source. It has disappeared from Wikipedia space, IMHO: because it is not a positive approach for Microsoft and related subjects, so was a subject to be eliminated. Continuing examples List of Microsoft operating systems List of Microsoft topics And if you look more careful it is visible there that most are primary sourced w/o 3rd party or even from party strictly related and/or reporting to Microsoft but still are - while in the same time eg. I have to look for hopeless but formally 3rd party source in my contributions or it can be expressdeletion. OK, MS also have right to have place in wikip, but problem starts when in organised manner wikipedia is smoothly censored and manipulated for marketing purposes of one company like Microsoft in long time and perspective. And any critical parts in articles are eliminated. i don't have ATM examples and it is waste of time also for you to look back for this. Those are small thing which in total creates overusing of trust and already have exceeded a critical mass overwhelming anything else but positive for Microsoft statements, just like in chain reaction. While some of them are true, eliminating neutral and critical ones is against NeutralPoint of view and encyclopaedic objectivity. eg. Sweets are liked by children and sugar provides calories so energy for young body - this is true. But eliminating critical/neutral: constant overuse of sweets hence sugar in them cause obesity and dental problems and in consequence may cause a diabetes - this is loosing neutrality and objectivity, as hides significant part of available knowledge from perspective/overview of reader/user . And this is pure evil I am talking about. Elop effect is good example. This is our times version of osborne effect, but it does not exists as separate article. Why? It was eliminated. While Osborne effect is not an Osborne (name) in this particular case Adam Osborne, it still exists as separate article even when mentioned in Adam Osborne. But Microsoft supporters, in my opinion only of course as I can't source it or prove it, is protecting his co-owner and employee Mr elop. Even in Elop article there is nothing about elop effect which caused Nokia lost its position of worldwide number 1 mobile vendor and mobile business was overtaken by MS for "a broken penny". Elop effect is communication effect, but not only. Elop effect is about uncontrolled management of person from outside the company at cost of managed company - a statement you mentioned is only exemplification. This is fake and falsification in wikipedia. Well this is my point and it can be disputable but anyway: I disagree Elop effect not to have separate article and hiding it behind the statement as this is hiding knowledge about the case. Osborne effect is historical but elop effect determines global situation in the particular market of mobile industry - even if we do not agree what exactly it is, what extent, is it in scale of company or whole Finnish economy, or weather it is combination of Osborne effect and Ratner effect or not - whatever: this is notable, 3rd sourced and significant for a number of populations (not only people). Note well: if you know nothing about Elop effect you are misinformed that this is a statement only, but this is big fake IMHO, statement is element of policy and important are consequences. However this minimalisation is convininet for some persons interested in. Next: Your point about Lumia is exactly how it works, also. Nobody of us have time to trace all those small problems, so they are left and sedimented in Wikipedia and with time they turns to be a truth to believed as this is what people do. There are not any critics about Lumia, anyone Lumia. It was but was, was sourced 3rd party but was eliminated. So people repeats and use this is good faith, only positive statements. So the marketing goal of only positive POV around Microsoft and related is achieved, isn't it? Yes, I understand verifiability you have mentioned. But also just like you, I can't waste my time. So if I will note again problem I will let you know. Or if I will have time to dig through past contributions will try to provide proves, what is less probable. Point is that when an edition is removed again and again every wikipedian & contributor leave it after 3rd or 5th time or edit war starts and in such a case MS supporter are working together to overwhelm not positive parts also using WPs very precisely. I understand WPs are to be followed and I agree with this. If you have noted a problem that something important is against essential Wikipedia values and foundations and have understood routines leading to lost objectivity and neutrality, what note well also mean luck of consensus and reasonable compromise, then a big stop forward has been done. I don't want to propagate any conspiracy theories etc. or activity against a particular entity, however I have noted my point of view about this problem is most frequently accused for this, what ends discussion. And in the meanwhile problem exists and growths, in consequence trust in Wikipedia suffers as people see the content can be one thing and reality just another, just "slightly different" and that "small something missed" can make a big difference. Just like in marketing they used to do. And something to add to view a wider picture Criticism of Microsoft, note that this is argument that there is criticism about Microsoft. Doubts are that it is allowed only in this one and only article and in any other articles in Wikipedia are allowed only positive statements about Microsoft and related. So in fact any "non-worshipping Microsoft" is under control and can be eliminated, so works as censoring practices or monopolising information/knowledge about a particular area around and about Microsoft and related subjects. And this seems to be illegitimate nonWikipediaPolicy enforced in whole Wikipedia - against WP:FIVEPILLARS . Note also this is very effective marketing strategy targeted to young or unaware about a subject and looking OBJECTIVE and NEUTRAL info in Wikipedia, and as they believe an article is such, they assume it contains quite whole picture, and when there is nothing critical or nothing neutral POV then it must be something only positive. So let's take it, Wikipedia has just confirmed this is OK - while this can be not quite true or not the whole picture, in consequence not a WP:NPOV , am I right? And this is against essentials and foundations of idea of encyclopaedia as such. Resuming: I will let you know next time I will find sth, now we will not make any more progress about this I am afraid, unfortunately. Think it over, let me know if you think I have missed anything or I ought to pay attention on something or should learn something or anything else you think is important. C U next time, that was a pleasure to meet you. If I would like you to do anything that would be not to dig in history as we are in practice unable to reverse all things, but I would like you to point this to others (admins?) under consideration and have this in mind in future admining Wikipedia. Only positive approach and positive thinking can give positive results I think. :) Ocexyz (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Rosoft: >>> Now elop effect is linked to "Burning Platform" memo section in Elop article - this is falsification and fake. It is related, but it is not the same. See Osborne effect and Adam Osborne for comparison as Elop efffect can be considered a combined Osborne effect and Ratner effect. I leave it here as you mentioned you want to link it as it is now, but it is not a consensus and against WP:FIVEPILLARS IMHO, what does not mean I am the only one who is right all the time. Ocexyz (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Harikul

Hello i am user:bibekbhurtel5 i found you have protected the article Shree Harikul from editing but i am creater of this article and i think i have some right to edit it so i request you to give me chance to edit this article or if there are any other alternatives then reply me.bibek 11:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting the article Shree Harikul. I will warn that user from editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibekbhurtel5 (talk • contribs)

Editing my page Oasis Academy School

Hi, i'd made a new page named Oasis Academy School. I want to make this article more better. So please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarojupreti132 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Entwisle

Hi Mike, Sorry if inappropriate to post a story about myself but I was advised to put up something to help people searching for a bit of background. I took the text mostly from articles already on line. Should I get someone else to post, or write it differently. Thanks Tim Entwisle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentwisle (talk • contribs) 05:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tentwisle: Yes, I would recommend waiting until somebody else writes an article about you. As a general rules, users are discouraged from creating articles about themselves; see the conflict of interest guideline for why such editing may be problematic.

    I have reviewed your article, but it was somewhat promotional in nature, and mostly sourced to your own works. Coverage in third-party reliable sources is the primary inclusion (notability) criterion; see also specific guidelines for biographies, and for academics in particular. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that Mike. I understand. I shall wait with patience. Best wishes, Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.55.14.1 (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nessun grado di separazione

Hi, could you explain me why you have reverted my edits on the page page I mentioned? Thank you. --Plaegely (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell man?

Why in the expletive would you delete my posts? The one wasn't even up long enough for you to have read? You best have a damn good explanation! If you don't then put it back up! Solri89 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no grievances with the U.S. Army! I'm a proud Army Vet! What are you talking about? This was not an article, it was the talk page. That is what the talk page is for! I commented on the one persons post and the other was a discussion on the Code. If you are such a Wikipedia pro, than how do I get you fired from your "job"? I read all the posts others put up on your page. It seems you are just power-mad. I'm dead serious guy. How do we get you removed? Solri89 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated and is obvious, you didn't even read my comment cuz there wasn't enough time for you to even read it. Plus your comment on my post doesn't even make sense! If you are such a WP pro, put my posts up on this page cuz definitely in this discussion now those posts are relevant for others to read so all can judge your worthiness. Solri89 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry about misunderstanding your posting; I have reviewed it again, and have now reverted myself and restored it. (I was under a mistaken impression that you were complaining about somebody being screwed over by the army.)

    There isn't really a specific procedure for removing an administrator from his position. If you want to complain about my conduct, you can go to administrators' noticeboard, and if that doesn't resolve the issue, the next step may be a request for comments or, in extreme cases, arbitration. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Solri89 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting my things

You may think that is just some non-sense but is about the description of a real existing and serious group, who paid for this to be made, so respect us. LouisPiJacorta (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of CEM

Why was the Clean Energy Ministerial deleted? It did not violate copy write laws, it was not self promoting, it was not organization run, I am confused about the justification.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennleonard24 (talk • contribs)

The T word

Hi. I wonder if the source for the claim you restored meets WP:RS, especially considering the BLPishness of the topic. (I'm not really here or I'd ask my non-evil twin to look into it with his usual thoroughness and care.) Thanks! Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss that? Okay, I've adjusted the citation to replace the partisan source with the original Reuters. Thanks. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

inre Draft:Pocket Gangsters

Care to assist here in expansion and sourcing? Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDITING JO HARMAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoreheroesanymore (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC) You unfortunately changed an article Jo Harman singer back to a previous version which is written by her manager and boyfriend Mark Ede aka Doomclause and Markede please see talk page !( if you checked the refs you'd notice that they don't support the statements made and are puffery . In fact I have tried to make several requests previously to have this article checked for neutrality etc but it never seems to happen . Instead people randomly seem to change something back to a version often containing many irrelevant links , for no logical reason I can see and take no notice of what is written on the talk page . I didn't think it was acceptable for a manager to write a wikipedia article about a client?girlfriend ? Maybe consider looking more carefully before you help someone incapable of writing an objective or even vaguely truthful article who continues to do this ad nauseum . If you doubt this I suggest you check earlier versions of Doomclause written articles . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoreheroesanymore (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi please help in stopping vandalism here Jo Harman. Doomclause (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you please re-delete Shantanu maheshwari and block the user who created it. (you deleted it recently) and protect the page from being created Music1201 (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pankej Khanna

This user has repeatedly violated policies and is now undoing others changes for no reason. Please block this user. Music1201 (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
this is for your good deeds as an admin in general TheSpaceFace Let's Chat 05:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk

A gentle reminder: Next time you battle a troll and have to semi-protect a ref desk page, please remember to also post the "lock" thing, so that Duncan Hill won't have an excuse to attack you for that minor mistake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as Dunkin is stonewalling, I've taken this issue to WP:ANI. If you would rather not make a thing of it, feel free to close it there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Draft:Azhar Sabri is pending.

Dear Mike Rosoft a wikipedia Draft:Azhar Sabri has created 6 months ago but still pending, please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QKUMAR (talk • contribs)

User pages

How dare to delete my sites? ManxManStats (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am ManxManStats and i have a question:

Can you send (or recover) my user page and ALL my subpages and my pages that i created to this e-mail:([e-mail removed]) or similar?

Please reply,

Greetings, ManxManStats ManxManStats (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spirits ratings article

Hi,

I would like to add in a piece on the International Whisky Competition to the Spirits ratings article. What I had in mind would be similar to the San Francisco World Spirits Competition insertion. I notice that the article had some difficulty with spamming recently so I thought that I would clarify the situation with you first. Fairfax49 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fairfax49 (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Rosoft&oldid=716166327"