User talk:MikeWazowski

Philipp Jordan

Hi I saw that you have reviewed my first wikipedia page. I added more references (not blogs, but german newspaper) and de-orphaned the page. Am I allowed to remove the notifications now? Or how should I proceed now? Thanks again for your help. My page is : Philipp Jordan. I created the page because I became aware that the artist was seen on the reddit front page. Furthermore I emailed Philipp Jordan, if he has a license free picture of himself for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carstenpohl (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Help`

On the wikipedia sister site Wikiquote I was working on an article when I was autoblocked. They said that I had been sockpuppeting. I admit that I did in the past but I was innocent this time how can I tell them this if I am blocked from editing? TheyCallMeFirstKlass 16:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deezy.D. (talk • contribs)

So it sounds like your original account was blocked over there? If that's true, then any editing you do over there is probably a violation of a block or ban. I'm guessing that Wikiquote's blocks are at least roughly similar to Wikipedia's blocks. Go look at your original account on Wikiquote, the account that got blocked first. Look at your talk page and find the spot where your block was posted. The block itself should have instructions on how to request an unblock. I don't know your history, so I don't know if they will unblock. I do know that it's best if your request to be unblocked admits exactly what you did wrong. Cloveapple (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!! TheyCallMeFirstKlass 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dark Signs?

Why Did you delete the Darksigns page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Trimm (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I never did - but if it was anything like the current version, which only consists of the words "Dark Signs is a best discribed as a" and nothing else, then it deserved to be deleted. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was working on editing it as it was deleted. But thanks for explaining. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Trimm (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working on the page don't delete it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Trimm (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how much clearer I can be - I'm not deleting anything. I'm simply tagging the article as a candidate for deletion, since at the time I tagged it, it was nothing more than an infobox, with no claims or signs of notability, and no references. If anything, this should be a watning flag to you to either accept that the subject doesn't pass muster to have an article and you need to stop recreating it, or that you need to wait until you have the references necessary before recreating. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Still multiple issues?

Hi Mike,

Does my page still have multiple issues? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roschier_Attorneys_Ltd.

If not, I was told the message must be removed manually.

--ChristineShaw (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I see why you are asking here since it was MikeWazowski who twice tagged the article as having issues. I think you'll have better luck getting a response from him if we fix the weird technical glitch that got into your link. The article is at: Roschier_Attorneys_Ltd.. Mike, could you please check the article to see if you still think it is ad-like and promotional, and has sourcing issues? Cloveapple (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks Cloveapple! Not sure what happened to my signature, I have used the button in the template... But let's see what Mike says about the article. --ChristineShaw (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike

You have deleted part of my life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.59.238 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Block

Hello agian mike, User:Ks0stm (talk) block my IP adress in september of this year. I'm 14 so as you know I'm in school, does User:Ks0stm (talk)have to remove my block or can just any administrator? Deezy.D. (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Speed deletion request removal

Hi. I just thought I'd let you know out of courtesy that I removed your speedy deletion request from the article DirectFix. I don't think it is unambiguous advertising. The article has 4 independent references. I think the article fails WP:NOTE, but as the author points out in the talk there are similar article on Wikipedia about iFixit and iResQ. If these are acceptable then I don't think it would be consistent to nominate DirectFix for speedy deletion. This is just my opinion; please feel free to request speedy deletion again if you wish. NereusAJ (T | C) 00:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the user who created the article is named DirectFix, it seems unambiguously promotional to me. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it is incriminating. It is definitely WP:COI. But still, this article is very similar to iFixit and iResQ. NereusAJ (T | C) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Comedy horror, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Ghost Breaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jan Schroers

Mike,

I saw that I received a speedy deletion for Jan Schroers page. The content on the page was pulled from him website-- which I authored. How can I prevent his site from being deleted?

Miriam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriamschroers (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Li Shengshun

why do you keep adding a redaction to the Li Shengshun article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusaga (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the article is completely unreferenced, and you have shown no significance or notability outside the series. I've reverted to the redirect again, but if you try to restore it, I will nominate it for deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Mike: Do you think I could talk with you directly? Would be happy to call you at your convenience. Thank you, Lenny Jason (I am the son of Jay Jason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Homepage.eu

Hello Mike and thank you for E-Mail.

Please note that i'm Paul Albert affiliated with http://www.inlife-ag.com/, located in switzerland, not the german "Inlife - Dirk Oschmann". Therefore i understand that my Username was probably chosen poorly, but i'm not in any way affiliated or in business with "Inlife - Dirk Oschmann" or Homepage.eu. I merely see it was a hobby to represent myself on the internet via social media or websites. I created a new account using my own name to reflect that better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by INlifeAG (talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Flintstones (2013) deletion

On my article, The Flintstones (2013 TV series) it says it will be deleted - why? Can you remove the deletion or let me know ways to make the article not get deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs)

No, I will not remove the speedy notice. The article was originally deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flintstones (Fox Television series). Since your version is not substantially different from prior versions that were deleted (including one you did back in December), the CSD G4 tag is appropriate. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Cuttance

I can't find any mention of him at the site you linked... Peridon (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The third paragraph is a direct lift from the linked page. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to Babylon 5 article

I noticed you prefer a season 4 poster of Babylon 5 being used instead of a screenshot of it’s intertitle logo. As the use of a screenshot of an easily identifiable element of the television show (taken from the opening credits) appears to be more appropriate in the infobox television template, and is what is used in all the wiki articles I’ve found on similar television shows, can you provide some rational for removing the B5 logo and replacing it with the poster. I’ve undid your change for the moment, as a poster could possibly be better placed in something like the article on the Babylon franchise!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsk59 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I just feel it better represents the series - it shows not only the logo, but the entire major cast. Kills two birds with one stone. Not only that, but as an image created by WB specifically for promotional purposes, I feel its better suited for a non-free use rationale than a screenshot, which was never licensed for such use. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I already gave reasons why I undid those edits but those users ignore me and undid my edits --98.216.243.140 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Armigo R. Pereira

Mike, Do not delete it my article in Armigo R. Pereira that is truth cosplay in USA in New york please dont do delete. Tst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tst213 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything - just flagged it for deletion. Apparently it's been deleted twice in as many days, nominated by editors other than myself. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike, while my initial edits were somewhat unnecessary, the point I was trying to make remains the same. That is, neutrality isnt strengthened by omission or mischaracterization. What any responsible person would consider news, PJ media is not. Fox news presents the news; CNN presents the news; PJ Media is little more than bloggers expressing extremely biased, usually unsourced, opinions. These opinions are so highly distorted it's not fair to credit PJ media as "presenting the news." News is expected to have some truth value in it. The goal of a news organization is not to allow bias to affect that presentation but PJ media has been thoroughly compromised. I invite you to explore their website to see for yourself. I'm of the mind that Wikipedia is a force for truth--or at least balance--in a world where there is so much distortion and omission. The United States government can now indefinitely detain it's citizens and is debating SOPA as we speak. Consider the facts omitted and the distortion involved to get things like this passed with such little resistance. Point being, outfits like PJ media serve no purpose other than to cajole and rouse their masses of followers. PJ media represents everything wrong in journalism-- blatant lies told over and over as fact. They are within their rights to do this of course but I believe it is irresponsible for a site such as Wikipedia to call this "news." The fact that your page omits how pervasive the lying and distortion is on the website is a disservice to neutrality. Being neutral means presenting all of the facts and presenting them in an unbiased (as possible) way. I feel you should change the part about PJ media presenting the news and choose something more accurate. While my complaint may seem insignificant, I don't think Wikipedia should be abetting websites that use the tactics of PJ media by legitimizing them by saying [they] present the news. While PJ media may only be a small website with a limited readership, I don't think Wikipedia's philosophy is to mischaracterize parties that act in ways Wikipedia specifically strives not to. Saying PJ media presents the news is in fact a gross mischaracterization. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicgroup87 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Publicgroup87 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

just had an idea. I think if you have time to check out PJ media you would not see anything wrong with the following suggestion: instead of saying pj media presents and comments on the news say PJ media presents and discusses conservative opinions. Publicgroup87 (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at my comments? Publicgroup87 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I did, and I am not interested in helping you trying to push POV comments in articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about Star Wars

When I redid my edit, I did not change the quote. But why are you calling the other edits as "inaccurate"? PRProgRock (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your changes made such inaccuracies as saying that Anakin's name was Darth Vader as a young slave - this is wrong. You claim that "Darth Sidious" corrupted him - however, as this is discussing plot points added in 1980, this is inaccurate, as the name was not invented until the late 1990s. The first prequel was originally called Episode I: The Beginning - your change of that to The Phantom Menace in that instance is also incorrect, as are your further name changes - they are all contextually incorrect in the forms you have changed. Do not make these changes again. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but for one thing, Darth Sidious and Emperor Palpatine are supposed to be the same character. Darth Tyranus and Count Dooku are also supposed to be the same character. And last, but not least, Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are also supposed to be the same character. PRProgRock (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

But you have to understand context - if the article is discussing these characters in historical context, your introduction of names introduced 15-20 years later is incorrect - and will be reverted. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask for delete.

Please delete the article of Daniel Ortiz, people still editing and know is consider to delete and I know that people still disturbing so please eliminate, I'm giving you the permission to do it, because I really don't know if you need the permission to do it, Daniel Ortiz (paintball player) this is the article, I placed the tag for deletion... This guy is relevant but eliminate this article and in the future I will make a better article with more relative sources... Paintballxtreme (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot delete articles. However, had you left the article alone, it would have been speedy deleted under the G7 criteria - but since you then went back in and recreated all the content in the article, I think you need to just let the AfD process run its course, as you've presented too many mixed messages about your intentions today. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MERKLE ARTICLE

Sorry, I thought I kept deleting the article myself since my computer has been freezing up. I didn't realize it was you. I'm trying to add a section similar to Ernst & Young's Global Structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_%26_Young. Can you tell me why I can't add the offices that Merkle has similar to Ernst & Young? Zavila (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ernst & Young is in a far different league than Merkle. However, even that article doesn't have a section that lists every single regional office. If you're referring to the gallery at that article, I've removed it for similar reasons. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem I understand, thanks for your help - I really appreciate your guidance. Is it ok if I add external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zavila (talk • Zavila (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)contribs) 20:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Football Ramble - Dean Windass Hall of Fame

What is the reason for continuing to delete the hall of fame section? It is referenced and is entirely related and notable when having a discussion on the podcast ---User:Murrayszymanski —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia does not exist to be a repository or backup for the podcast's activities. There is no sign of notability for this "hall of fame" outside the podcast, and it is only referenced to the podcast website itself, which is hardly independent sourcing. There is a section about the hall of fame in the article, and that has never been deleted. However, there is no place for the entire list on Wikipedia - that is what the podcast's website is for. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

S3X Gallery article

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to do an article about San Francisco's first gallery dedicated to showing only erotic art. S3X Gallery brings a sex museum back to San Francisco which was the first city to have a sex museum.

I will gladly take any advice you have on how to write an article about this, if it fits the guidelines for Wikipedia.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by S3xgallery (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply Group Page deleted

Hello, I'm the author of the Reply Group wiki definition. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you have deleted it. It was very similar to Capgemini or Accenture pages, also Ferrero or Fiat. So, why Reply can't have a wiki page?! Among other things, in Italian Wikipedia the definition of Reply SpA there is a long time ago. (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply) But if you think that there is something to be changed, please let me know and I will modify it! In the notes you have wrote " copyright infringement of http://www.reply.it/upload/File/wps/company/Company_Profile_eng.pdf)". I'm the author of this document, but if is necessary I'l insert the "cite" in the references. Thanks in advance Valentina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentina.parola (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

deletion of my edit to the Spud entry

Hi Mike, the information that the novel has been modified for its North American printing seems important for readers to know and is demonstrably true. If I can get Penguin or the author to acknowledge the changes, will that pass your "no original research" screen? Thanks. Spud fan 77 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me

Was there any legitimate reason why you felt that the Tom and Jerry poster images didn't belong on their respectable articles? I feel that they help illustrate their individual subjects without the need for a gross over abundance of non-free material, as many Tom and Jerry shorts articles are currently doing. Sarujo (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the style guides set forth in the Animaion Wikiproject (and as seen in most animated cartoon articles) is to show the film's title card in the infobox. I just restored the articles back to the preferred format. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike, I'm not taking advice about edits from a man who thinks he's starred in Disney Pixar's Monsters Inc.!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lv123jv456 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mississippi Queen (band)

Hy, You deleted my article aboum Mississippi Queen (band) for nothing. I wrote that article on official site of Mississippi Queen, so i dont destroy any copiright rights.