User talk:MikeWazowski

Gordon Swaby

So, is it that gordon swaby will be deleted or is it that those warnings will remain until more citations are added? If so, what kind citations are needed? Ojamaican (talk) 14:15, 19 March 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Daniel Ortiz

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)

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)

on Robert Eisner

how could I enjoy editing here. Mr. Robert Eisner was to became my first contribution; I was kind of proud of that, and I was gathering some more related info on Him. You requested the new entry to be speedily deleted – for clear copyright infringement - how could it be. Please explain it to me. Alberto Veronese (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because you cut-and-pasted text directly from the Chicago Tribune obituary. That's a clear copyright infringement, and not allowed on Wikipedia - I don't know how much clearer I can make it. However, someone has recreated the article, and in a much more acceptable version. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is false Wazowski. Yes, Cindamuse made then the article; a great page. But it was from a small (first) - bona fide - contribution I started. What I think and saw, was an inappropriate conduct from your side. Alberto Veronese (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Please, try to make that an official complaint. The fact that another admin deleted it after I tagged it (remember, I can't delete articles - only an admin can do that) shows that there was merit to the tag. You don't like being called on the carpet for adding a copyvio? There's a a simple solution - in the future, DON'T ADD COPYVIOS. End of discussion. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Film festivals

You're trying to delete pages for film festivals that have been around for years but are run by people who aren't up to date with technology. We spent all night trying to increase knowledge of these events and rather than take the time to add information to them you nominate them for speedy deletion? They have every right to be in an encyclopedia that Cannes and Sundance do but don't have studio dollars backing them and when filmmakers try to help them out, someone comes along to take it all away for no reasonn. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.239 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Every page you created not only appear to have all the text lifted directly from the respective websites, but all also just so happen to have ties to the movie Strings. Copyright violations and self-promotion have no place here. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kim Man Lui Student

I am inviting the Wikipedia Ambassadors to review the page of Kim Man　Ｌｕｉ. Please do not remove the references. The page has been ruined. I am the student of Kim Man Lui and I spent lots of time to get those references. If references in Chinese are not allowed, please let me know rather deletion　（ａｓ　Ｉ　ｄｉｄ　ｎｏｔ　ｈａｖｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｏｐｙ） and I try my best to look for English reference of my teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofriends9999 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Could you please restore the page as before. You of course add notability warning at the head. --Nofriends9999 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I made the edits I did for a reason. Furthermore, I'd suggest you read up on the conflict of interest guidelines, now that you've admitted your own COI in the subject. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I called in Cindamuse for help. Many references are in Chinese. Thanks, Kim Man Lui has thousands of students. Thanks. So we cannot write for him? FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindamuse#Kim_Man_Lui_Page--Nofriends9999 (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I am not going to write or edit anything until Cindamuse says I can write it. Thanks, --Nofriends9999 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

explanation politely requested

Hi Mike,

Can you please provide justification of this edit? [1]

It would have been possible to have done this, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. I think it's a fairly common courtesy to me, as a fellow editor, that you do this. In particular, can you explain, why somebody would be listed by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Who's Who. Did you do any research yourself? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)‎

I've generally found most Who's Who to be questionable sources, as they generally require some form of payment to be listed. I cannot speak to the Oxford volume, nor can I read it at present, but based on one line (she was a British psychologist), that's hardly enough to demonstrate notability - hence the tag. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike, Thanks for your reply. Who's Who does not require payment to be included but is compiled professionally. Oxford DNB is a biographical encyclopedia also compiled professionally (as per the articles on both). They both select their members based on merit alone. She's also the subject of a book by an academic (the same has written some papers on her too). I agree the article is short, and I have not read the book but if I put down some facts like she was the first woman to be awarded a PhD in psychology in Britain, the first female professor of psychology in Britain, is that not good enough? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oo-lone

Hi, if you're still not happy with the news sources quoted could you please delete the page in its entirety, rather than keeping a page saying it has been deleted? Thanks Jonquilljones (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, I didn't delete anything, but the page has been deleted. Unfortunately, I can't do anything about the notice that something had been deleted - that's just part of the way Wikipedia works. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. Could you delete this talk section so that the title doesn't get picked up by search engines? Thanks Jonquilljones (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Popcorn?

	Have a bowl of popcorn!
	Would you care for some? I've been enjoying a bowl as I watch this circus unfold before me. This suspense is terrible. I hope it will last. Erikeltic (Talk) 19:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I found this to be both hypocritical and hysterical - apparently being shown the truth was "unconstructive". Whatever. That block was long overdue. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

editing bernhard thalheim wiki

Why are you editing this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdhal (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware I needed anyone's permission. Considering that I removed text that was a copyright violation, I was entirely justified in my editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Djathinkimacowboy

Please note that per WP:BLANKING, editors are allowed to remove comments from their own talk pages and these should not be restored. And also note that users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, cf. Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

However, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical of him to accuse me of posting inaccurate content on his page (which did not happen), and for him to then continually remove a simple request to prove that, while his original allegation remains uncontested? MikeWazowski (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

He's been having bad days lately. Don't bother him. It'll only make him do worse things. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What Jasper said. Dja was blocked and is now feeling upset and ganged up on; your posts on his talk page can only aggravate him further, even if that's never been your intention... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

why?

I went back in and posted links to his Endorsement page with Pearl Drums and validated everything I wrote about the guy with links.. What is the problem here?? He is in 2 national bands both are signed to record labels and he has national and international releases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticcreations (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you just posted a bunch of links to various primary sources, not all of which even mention the guy. Nothing you added is from independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, which is why I restored the redirect. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is actual actual artist link on Pearl Drums - http://www.pearldrum.com/Artists/Drumset-Artists.aspx?id=683 Validated!! Here is the press release on his envolement with Inzane Records - http://keithentertainmentgroup.com/inzanerecords.cfm , if you take the time to read the 1st paragraph it says he is director of A&R.. Bonz - http://keithentertainmentgroup.com/bonz.cfm if you again take the time to scroll down the page to the pictures, thet include band members and postions..

And then there is The Chaos Agent, witch are signed to Inzane Records in the US and Bellaphon Records in Germany - Once again if you just look, it is validated.. - http://www.facebook.com/thechaosagent

The guy is real and the links validate it.. If you look at Allele's facebook pages you can validate that KEG Management is who reps them..http://www.facebook.com/official.allele1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticcreations (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You've posted a lot of primary sources, and Facebook is not a reliable source - please read the appropriate guidelines for verifiability and reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in an effort to find sources. Unfortunately Mike is right that Wikipedia can't use an endorsement page or a Facebook page as a source of information. What is needed for a Wikipedia article is sources such as magazine articles, newspaper articles, or books. If you have some sources like that I'd be glad to help you learn how to use them to back up a Wikipedia article. Cloveapple (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Carrie's Life With Magic

Please do not bite the newcomers, like you did here. I have reverted your edit and instead welcomed them. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the entire "article" is a fraud - there is no program called Carrie's Life With Magic - this is also likely not a new user, but a repeat offender, as there have been a rash of these accounts that try to create fake television program histories over the past few months. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:AGF? Don't judge a book by it's cover. Tag it as a draft first, which will put it in this category, which can be purged later. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that AGF is not a suicide pact. I often close MfDs and I recognise a pattern, here, though I honestly can't remember who the main account is. This is most definitely not a newbie... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I did a Google search on "Carrie's Life With Magic", and found zero results. AGF is all fine and dandy, but in this case, I don't think it applies - the content (not in article space, mind you, but on a talk page, where it wouldn't belong anyway) was a complete hoax. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Userspace is an even less pressing issue than article space, because remember, user's are given wide latitude to do what they please with their user space. It's one thing to react the way you did in article space, but you are being extremely bite-y by doing it in a new user's space. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that user's gone and removed all your welcomes and messages, so I've gone ahead and flagged it as a hoax speedy deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a surprise considering the way you treated them. Also, CSD G3 doesn't apply to user pages. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Horse hockey. This is not a new user, the content is fraudulent, and per the FAKEARTICLE guidelines, I was perfectly within my rights to remove it. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

University of Washington - United Greek Council

Hi I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to understand why my article is marked for a speedy deletion. I got the following response from someone who is trying to delete my article.

"This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Note that schools are not eligible under this criterion"

How can I justify that the organization I am try to write about is an important subject? I provided a brief description of the organization and I was hoping to interview some of the members of the organization for a history section later on. You can find my article at "University of Washington - United Greek Council"

Thank you Wilsonlu (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a misunderstanding about what kinds of articles Wikipedia has. We can't host the sort of original research you are planning to do. If you want to do a series of original interviews it would be best to find a different sort of website to host them, maybe start a blog for your school's Greek history?

If you still want to write a Wikipedia article on the topic, what you need to get started is sources that Wikipedia will accept. (And finding such sources would show that others have considered the topic important enough to write about.) So to write an article here you'd need to find newspaper articles, magazine articles, or books that discuss U of W's Greek organizations. If you have sources like that I'd be glad to help you learn the basics of writing an article here. If you don't have that sort of source, then Wikipedia is not a good place for your information. Cloveapple (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There are only two sources that are credible regarding the subject I am talking about. One is from the University's newspaper and the second one is the organization's website. There are no other sources that (I know of) that has reported on this organization. Both of the sources I named are listed and referenced in my article. I was hoping to conduct interviews on the founders of the organization to add additional information in the future. Currently, only information provided by the sources are presented on the article. Wilsonlu (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If I put the United Greek Council on the University of Washington page, will that be more appropriate for my work? Wilsonlu (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding a sentence or two to the school article would be better than trying to write a complete article on the subject. However if all you have is a student newspaper as a source, I'd still say it's a little iffy. (The organization's own website wouldn't be a very good source for Wikipedia.) If you really really want the information in Wikipedia I'd suggest asking a school librarian for help in finding sources such as non-student newspapers, books, or magazine articles. It's sometimes surprising what you find with the help of somebody who knows how to research.

However it still might turn out that the best use of your time is to find a different web space for your information. Cloveapple (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PRProgRock

I made one of my rare decisions to impose a block of less than 24 hours on them, as it is entirely possible their position could be right ... they're not, as you admitted, adding false information per se, just using a name for a character not used at that point in the narrative. Since that might be defensible under current policy, I don't consider it vandalism.

However, refusing to discuss and continuing to edit this way either against, or in the absence of, clear consensus is undeniably disruptive, so the editing's blockable. In the future, should they continue, report them for that rather than vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - the best I ever got out of him was this section above, where I tried to explain it to him - he apparently does not understand (or refuses to acknowledge) context. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Pride Toronto Information

Mike, I would like to know why the leadership information is not required or the WorldPride 2014 information. Its valuable info regarding the date! thanks SMCKINNON (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Steven

The leadership information would be fine for the group's own website, but it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article - this site does not exist to be a mirror of your group's website. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Hollinger

Why did you remove the quote from Dennis Hollinger and what purpoes do the maintainece plates serve, neither of them appear to apply to the article (which was not self-published... I am not Dennis Hollinger)ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote is inappropriately placed - that type of promotional opening is fine for a personal website, but completely out of place in an encyclopedic article. The tags were added because you have references to self-published items - his books. The do nothing to indicate notability, just existence. The primary sources tag refers to the school websites - again, these do little to indicate notability, just confirm existence from connected sources. Until you can supply better references, these tags need to remain. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

MTV Czech, Nickelodeon Central & Eastern Europe

Hello, I would like to ask why you have removed "Coming Soon" aka future programming sections from MTV Czech and Nickelodeon Central and Eastern Europe? These two articles are edited and updated regularely by myself and I have all the information for them first hand, not only becuase I live in this area and watch the feeds at a regular basis. All of the mentioned future programming is accurate and even has been cited by the channels themselves - though there is no available link to prove it. However, the upcoming programming on Nickelodeon UK has been preserved, yet on the CEE feed it has been removed. Jack 6428 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever I removed was done because it was completely unreferenced speculation, which (as WP:CRYSTAL states) has no place here. Without proper references from reliable sources, I would feel no hesitation in removing it again. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Spotware Systems Ltd

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Spotware Systems Ltd to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Bmusician 14:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While no notability is asserted in the article, I don't think it is advertising. Thoughts? --Bmusician 14:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This one set off every red flag in my book as far as advertising was concerned - new user account (and possibly connected to the company. as they claimed copyright ownership on all the images used, including the logo), first edit was an incredibly detailed article about a company and its products, complete with a raft of images better suited to an internal article on their website than an encyclopedic article on the company - it's more focused on promoting their products, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Roma (Character)

plz stop removing info on roma character coz people r cleanin the article up now so u dont need 2 delete so plz stop doin that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.169.211 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As the AfD was closed with the recommendation to redirect the article, I will continue to restore the redirect. You are out of line in restoring the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

but the article looks better than b4 plz leave it like that plz :)

I don't care. You have not given any valid reasons for restoring it, so I have reverted you. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

M Class planet

I just watched the episode of Star Trek: Enterprise where they said that. Here's a link to a Star Trek page that confirms it http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Class_M--94.15.42.24 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Memory Alpha is non a reliable source, as it is both a fan site and user-editable. However, while the term Minshara is used in the series, nowhere is it specifically stated from a reliable source that Minshara and M-class are the same - not even on the official page at startrek.com. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ink Global

Looking at the source and target it looks like a copy and paste. However, assuming that load of awards, which I think is undue weight anyway, is to be left in, since it's a list, how can one avoid it? Thoughts for the article creator would be appreciated, too, please. I think they are very new to WP. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and remove it - I'm finding a lot of copyvios or copy/pastes from the primary source already, so I'm beginning to think we've got a COI advert on our hands, anyway... MikeWazowski (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not delete my pages about the members

it took me 2 hours to make those pages. would you please revert on the notability maybe you're right but i don't want the member section on the One Direction page to became huge and filled up with info. The coldplay members all have there own page the only that's notable in the group is Chris Martin i don't even know the other band members name. User: AdabowtheSecond — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdabowtheSecond (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

They were not deleted, just redirected to the main band article because they showed little notability outside the group. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

your edit for stipple

Stipple is the company name so not sure how you've determined it to be a hijacking of the redirect! Any suggestions on what the page name should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcdonnel (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if anything, you should have created a new page, such as Stipple (company) instead of hijacking an existing redirect, as you most certainly did. However, given than the company is a startup of questionable notability and the article had a very advertising tone, and had already been proposed for deletion, I'm not sure it would have lasted long anyway. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Niall Horan

You are dangerously close to 3RR on Niall Horan. Three different editors have expressed a different opinion than you. If you think the article should be deleted for notability concerns, then please file an AfD. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

One is the article creator, the other seems connected, and Barney was just making a WP:POINTy revert after making a personal yesterday. If you'll unprotect the article, I intend to file an AfD on it to force the issue on the redirect - I don't wish to delete it, but I don't believe the kid has demonstrated any significant notability outside the group. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand there is a background here, but reverting is still edit-warring - it's not a solution. Unprotected for you to take it to AfD, but please do not revert again. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Epic film

It's not vandlaism if i'm making positive work on an article. Instead of giving me incorrect warnings, I suggest you discuss my edits on a talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Except you're not making positive work on it. Your edits are becoming increasingly WP:POINTy in my opinion, and you're this close to getting a block for edit-warring. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to accuse a lot of users of WP:Point as an argument, but I feel you are doing the same to boost your own definition of "epic science fiction" in the lead of the 2001 article. I've made discussions on the epic film article's talk page which you have ignored. I don't appreciate this and if you want to contribute to the article go right ahead and add citations, try to add a conversation than just deleting me based on speculation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Marble

I've come across a couple of pages today where your edit summary said you were redirecting the title to marble, but instead of properly redirecting you actually just blanked the page instead. So just wanted to give you a quick reminder that if you're redirecting, you need to actually put a #REDIRECT, followed by the target title, into the page. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird - I could have sworn I redirected all those properly. Must've been a glitch, somehow... MikeWazowski (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Don (character)

Umm, sir... if Don 3 releases, will u accept "Don" (protagonist of the Don series) as a notable character? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not without reliable sources that indicate some sense of notability outside the films. Not all movie series characters are notable outside their own films... MikeWazowski (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Free Internet Correspondence Games Server

Hello, could you please rename my article from Free Internet Correspondence Games Server to FICGS. FICGS does get google search results. Also I updated my sources. Thanks for the help. Dimvass (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One Direction individual pages

when will the faith off the articles be finalized seems like forever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdabowtheSecond (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cassidy Turley

Hi Mike, I worked to remove text that may appear promotion in tone or style to adhere to compliance standards and your remarks. Also removed some external links and added a few independent sources to improve references. Can you weigh in as I would like to remove the maintenance templates if that is now appropriate. Thx --Laura Wallace 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurawallace799 (talk • contribs)

Adding external links

Hi Mike,

My apologies. As you can see, this is my first time adding links to wikipedia. If possible, I'd like to resubmit. Popcornflix, which is listed as a source on Wikipedia, owns all the rights to these movie titles. We'd simply just like to be added as a reference for your visitors to learn more about the movies you have listed on your site. I'll be happy to resend the links in this format:

Movie title at Popcornflix (linking to the Wiki article).

Would this be acceptable?

Thank you, Popcornflix1 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Carol

I'm sorry, but advertising links like this just aren't allowed on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Do it for Columbo

As if this were a surprise ... I'd appreciate it if you did not fritter round with this article whilst we are in mediation, Mike. I know how you cannot stay away from yanking my chain when something's cooking that doesn't even concern you ... but please leave it alone. It'll only get reverted anyway, what's the use of you sticking your beak in?--Djathinkimacowboy 04:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, what's your problem? Every movie and TV article I have on my watchlist (and Columbo is one of them) has an IMDB link in the external links section - it's not a controversial edit, I was just following standard practice. I don't need your permission to edit or not edit any article, and this has nothing to do with you, so I'd appreciate you dropping the insinuation that any time we cross paths is meant to be confrontational. Go away. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, you were right and I was wrong about the whole issue, and I came here to apologise as well as to let you know I admitted this at the MedCab. But I see you just told me to "go away", so I'll do that. I was only going to indicate furthermore, it's a little funny the way you keep showing up wherever I am having a 'to-do'. You picked one heck of a time to decide to go over to Columbo and fix the error, though I appreciate that you did it. It called it to my attention. So, how about this: we each go away from the other? Can you do that? I know I can, and I did it in the past, yet here you showed up again apparently to avoid a confrontation with me, right?....--Djathinkimacowboy 01:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

CoolNovo

I've declined your A7, as it's a web browser not web content. If the article were about www.herbertsfavourites.gb. where one could download it, yes, that's web content. The prog itself, no, sorry. Prod or AfD as it's not spammy in tone. BTW I don't think IMDb is forbidden so long as not used for notability. If it has been while I wasn't looking, someone's going to very busy removing it... Peridon (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I retagged it under A10 - seems the editor already created CoolNovo last week. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Seth Morgan Romero

I didn't mean to do any disruptive editing. I didn't know what I did was wrong. I feel the page Seth Morgan Romero has enough references and credibility to stay as a page on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvinworks (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't at this point. Personal pages from Facebook, Tumblr, and IMDB are not reliable sources. Of the two Amazon links, one shows a self-published book (barely a pamphlet, actually) which is not a good indicator, and the other has no mention of Romero. Credibility is in short supply on the article as it stands now. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How is IMDb not credible? Isn't IMDb more credible than Wikipedia? Ladyxlolita (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Ladyxlolita

Transcreation

Why did you delete the Wikipedia entry for Transcreation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptiktb (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not - I redirected it to the WikiDictionary link, as it was before. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? Where can someone read the article? Wiktionary has none of that text in its entry for Transcreation. Skeptiktb (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

edits to Ian Watkins

what if you are now conversing with a reliable source? Do you class tabloid newspapers as reliable sources? Ian has always told me and everyone else that he was never in a relationship with Alexa Chung, only seeing her casually, yet because a tabloid picked up on it suddenly it's fact because it was printed. I AM a reliable source you can trust me on that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonninj1 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, you're not. Please read the guidelines on reliable sources - neither you nor the link you're using qualify. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments

Hello, you are welcome to contribute to the following page.

WP:Requests for comment/TBrandley

Thanks.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashley Blake misinformation

Thank you for your swift reply.

Your source, as you say was The Birmingham Post whose article was also incorrect. I was not in a position to personally correct their article as I was sentenced to prison, however my solicitor wrote to the editor to ask for a correction of the facts, to which they agreed. Therefore can you please remove this part the page with immediate effect. I thank you for your assistance in this matter. Kind regards A. Blake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.200.80 (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Birmingham Post reference (as it reads right now) specifically backs up the claims in the article. Your explanation holds no water. Please do not continue to vandalize the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I have notified this user myself after reviewing the edits made and gave a warning and an overview of the rules. I personally think that you should have given more warnings before you gave the final warning. The user's edits may not be considered vandalism, but rather a Conflict of interest. Please hold off on the matter for now, and if the user continues I will take further action.

Thanks. Hghyux (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Who are you Mike Wazowski? I am thinking it might be someone that knows me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkd07 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues-tag

You have tagged the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roschier with multiple issues. Since then it has been amended with the help and input from wiki-admins. Could you now take a look at it again, and re-evaluate the tagging. Thank you! --ChristineShaw (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

proposed deletion of pre-popping article

Hi Mark,

My name is Yaniv Nizan and I wrote the article about pre-popping.

I noticed that while the terms pre-pop, pre-popping and pre-poppable are widely used in the lead generation industry that turns around $4.7 billion dollars annually and employees tens of thousands of people, the definition of the terms is missing from wikipedia.

My main concern is that deleting this article is indicative of a larger problem that can be thought of as a chicken and egg problem. If wikipedia can't define terms that haven't been already defined elsewhere, and others are not willing to define terms not previously defined in wiki then we are at a deadlock. In other words, someone has to go first and formalize terms commonly used by large amounts of people.

Regards,

Yaniv Nizan (212.25.110.130 (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

• (talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is also not here to promote usage of any term, only to state facts that can be verified with reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit war a brewin...

Mike, I just noticed that there appears to be an edit war going on at Star Trek canon. Instead of reverting, please use other methods to make people agree with your version of an article. Thanks! --Jayron32 18:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Already discussing it on that talk page - we're dealing with a WP:SPA who's trying to restore his own preferred version from eight months ago. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you and the other user are in a content dispute. Labeling them as a [WP:SPA|single purpose account]] doesn't give you justification for edit warring. Also note that having a narrow topic interest doesn't make an account a single purpose account. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lindsay McCaul

I think your tagging is in error because I provide adequate resource for WP:N and I took all the info from her own website that is personal in nature and found others to back up the information not contained in the official website.HotHat (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cassidy Turley

Mike, I did post to your talk page earlier this week. Looks like you've been busy! I revised edit for promotional tone and also scrubbed the references a bit. I removed maintenance tags. Please weigh in if this looks good. Thanks for your help.--Laura Wallace 17:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to Tags Discussion on Karen Wynn Talk page

Hello MikeWasowski, Since you have made edits recently to Karen Wynn page I invite you to join discussion (if you choose to) of possible removal of "References," "Original Research," and "Improper References" tags. This is occurring on the Talk:Karen Wynn talk page. Thanks! Dianeblack (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Preemptive warning

In light of the burgeoning dispute between you and Hahnchen concerning Super Hornio Brothers and/or the Unofficial media category, Template:Mario franchise has been reverted to the last stable version; please read WP:BRD and take your concerns to the talk page before this devolves into an edit war. :) Salvidrim! 17:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ghanau

It was a copy of http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%98%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%8A so I deleted it as that. Peridon (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology to MikeWazowski

Hi Mike, I owe you an apology. After a few weeks of reflection as well as reviewing Wikipedia policies carefully, I realized that I was wrong and also misunderstood some of these processes. While I was disheartened that you nominated the My Revenge (band) article for deletion without more discussion about it with me on my talk page; I nevertheless made some poor decisions following the nomination. I do want you to know, that with regards to sockpuppetry - some of the editors on the deletion discussion page who wanted to keep the article were entirely independant of me and I have no relationship or knowledge of them whatsoever. Indeed though, some of the editors who wanted to keep the article did have a relationship with me and liked the article, so they logged on with the specific purpose of wanting to vote to keep the article. I recognize this is not sound Wikipedia policy and I should not have had anything to do with that - but I do want to clarify that it was not me just using separate accounts to support the article, but indeed though some were friends. I apologize for that, as well as my vitriol towards you in on the discussion and talk pages. I am going to take a break, reassess what I'd like to do, and perhaps do some minor editing to other articles for the time being. I wanted to tell you that you're a great editor and a solid contributor to Wikipedia. I am truly sorry for what happened. No excuses at all, I apologize. Sincerely, Vermont Hardcore Punk (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Cash method of accounting

Hello Mike how are you? That paragraph to which you brought my newly created article of "Cash method of accounting" relates to the tax concept, whereas I am writing the article on GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). The only sentence that can relate to my article in that paragraph, which I intend to expand is "Similar definition of cash basis accounting is true for financial accounting purposes". As a practicing CPA I am quite aware of the difference, so, unless you have an argument against it, would you please gently revert your edit which deleted the "Cash method of accounting" article and redirected it into the cash accrual concept? You can also consult the sources that I brought forth. Thanks! Markerdryer (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Top Foods Monopoly Game

Why did you delete my entry on the Top Foods Monopoly Game? The article was not promotional. The information was presented in a concise factual manner. The article also included useful statistical analysis of the game not available anywhere else. The article was very similar to the article on the McDonalds Monopoly game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlovejoy (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Blodsrit

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Blodsrit, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A signed band with albums that are not self-released is beyond the garage bands what A7 is for. . Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OR Academy Award content

Hi.

Please excuse my ignorance on this, but if you're going to delete the multiple award nominations lists that I've either added or ammended, why are you leaving the very same list on the Academy Award for Best Director page, which has been up since early 2008 (and was essentially the basis for me doing the rest of them)? Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, how does this qualify as synthesis if it's merely a frequency tally? This doesn't qualify as drawing a conclusion not stated in the original source, it's merely a reconstitution of the exact same data. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, just wondering if I would still be able to get a bit of a better explanation on this with relevant and equitable precedents rather than just an edit summary. And why the four-year-old section on the Director page still seems to be an exception. Cheers, Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Friendly nudge

Hello. Regarding your tag-interaction with Kmhistory recently, while your tag additions are valid, please beware of tag bombing articles. Regards —Eustress ^talk 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Musical B@man!

I noticed that you where the initial editor to tag Holy Musical B@man! for deletion. I have now brought it to an AFD discussion. As someone who has edited this article and tagged it before, I presume that I can consider you an interested party to this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Musical B@man!. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/bank book, term loan, revolving credit, others

Hi Mike,

You prohibited publication of several entries I made last week -- bank book, term loan, revolving credit, etc. Forgive me for any missteps. I've used Wikipedia for years, but am new to editing. I am grateful for its existence, and certainly want to work with you and others to maintain its high standards. This is an important resource that demands high quality and diligent enforcement.

I've since read extensively in an attempt to educate myself. I've read about Conflict of Interest, neutral point of view, verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, copyright compliance, etc.

Please help me understand something. When I posted the article, my talk page (below) stated that I was involved with putting online the Leveraged Finance Primer. I do help maintain the website on which the Primer resides, and I never tried to be deceptive about this. The site does not produce a revenue stream. It has a neutral point of view. It is created by a reporting and research division of Standard and Poor's as a service to the leveraged finance community. It is meant to help that community, particularly students and those new to the industry, in understanding key terms and dynamics. The information is presented in an exceedingly neutral form, by industry professionals. These professionals are not in the business of sales or trading, but rather reporting.

We note that many terms used in the industry are not addressed in articles currently in Wikipedia. The articles are of use to the leveraged finance community. Just as importantly, they are of use to a public that is becoming -- as a requirement against the sort of blindness that caused the financial collapse of a couple years ago -- more educated. As the market changes and becomes more robust, it will be important for the public to understand terms such as a "dividend loan" to perform policing and over watch of the financial community.

There is a subscription-based website that this division of S&P produces. However, we've created this new free website especially to help educate the industry in a neutral way. On it is a "Leveraged Loan Primer" which some experts have put time into creating. This Primer contains terms which those new to the industry will need defined. This is the primary reference which we'll use in creating new Wikipedia entries.

Again, we don't sell S&P services on this site or in the Primer. It is created as an information vehicle only.

We think information on the website and in other internal copyrighted documents can be enormously beneficial to Wikipedia users.

I am working to get complete copyright information so I can supply that as needed when I quote directly or reference the site. I will have permission, but want to make sure all copyright is in order before proceeding. Can you please confirm that once this is available, that I will be able to post this material?

Again, we believe that defining terms and dynamics of this industry -- most not at present addressed by Wikipedia -- is precisely in lines of supplying the community a verifiable resource with a neutral point of view.

Thanks

ORIGINAL "TALK" PLACED ON "TERM LOAN" PAGE-- I originally created this page and provided the reference: http://www.leveragedloan.com/primer/ This is a new online source, expanding upon the hard copy brochure published by Standard & Poor's: "A Guide to the Loan Market," Copyright 2011 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC (S&P) a subsidiary of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. This is the most requested document concerning Leveraged Loans in the $375 billion leveraged finance community. The Primer is written by experts with decades of experience in leveraged finance. The lead writer is Steven Miller, who is Director of Leveraged Commentary and Data at S&P. Among other things, he hosts a Forbes blog dedicated to leveraged finance. He is one of the preeminent authorities in this field in the world. We put the publication online as a service to the asset class and leveraged finance community, and are spending considerable time creating, updating, and adding attribution to Wikipedia articles in this niche area of finance. Again, as a service to those who work and study leveraged finance. We find that many key terms -- such as this, "term loan" -- are not included in Wikipedia. For that reason, I created this short article yesterday, attributing it to the online Primer. We also find that some terms listed can be improved and are therefore pasting in a couple of sentences, where appropriate, to articles in order to provide the Wikipedia community with more detailed and updated info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterwl37 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem was that nearly everything you poster was a direct copyright violation - i.e. a word for word copy/paste of the material on those websites. As to whether it can be posted, it would be better if you were able to supply references to sites NOT controlled by you or your company, so that any conflict of interest/promotional aspects can be cleared up. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

PRETTYBIRD

Hi Mike,

I contested the speedy deletion of the page by leaving a comment in Talk:PRETTYBIRD. I have removed a significant amount of content and revised as much information as possible to adhere to NPOV guidelines.

Redfriday27 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Page "Rémi E. Ballot"

Hello,

Following your message, I add a biography and sources.

Sincerely, Lebosscali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebosscali (talk • contribs) 05:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul MJ Miller

Following an email regarding proposed deletion of the page Paul MJ Miller for lack of references. Numerous links and reliable references have now been added to verify the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximusazurri (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Rytmus

Please do not speedy tag articles which have interwikis, references and countless more references on their interwikis. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of "no assertion of notability". Rytmus is clearly notable, he's one of the most (unfortunately) influential hip hop musicians in CZ/SK and has appeared all over the idol shows there as a judge, I started that article as a stub because I don't have the time or energy to translate the whole article from cs.wiki yet. As for Kontrafakt, if anything I think this could redirect to Rytmus, because he's the only one who's really notable. - filelakeshoe 17:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not speedy Rytmus, I redirected it, as I did not believe him to be notable outside his group. While you may disagree, do not lecture me, as I did nothing wrong in my edits. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi Mike, You deleted our page, Navigating the Product Mindset. Can you please provide insight into how we could get the page back up? Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ULdialogue (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I just flagged it for deletion, as blatant promotional pieces like you posted for your company just aren't allowed on Wikipedia. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Web Links

Mike can you please review the Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto Wikipedia page about a user deleting some valuable websites and in the process blocked my other username SMCKINNON_SBCCT I jsut choose that username not to website or group and I should have unblocked.SMCKINNON (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Mike, if you connect the letters SBCCT to Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto, you'll figure out pretty quickly why I blocked that account. On User talk:SMCKINNON SBCCT there is a kind of explanation for the two accounts but it doesn't make a damn bit of sense, and one could actually interpret the events as socking. SMCKINNON, you need to consider that this is an encyclopedia, not a means for you to promote an event with which you appear to be connected. Speaking of which, I just found something else I think is interesting, but I will place that on your talk page. Thanks Mike. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For helping prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Regards —Eustress talk 00:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice sleuthing with the sock ID here. As a cautionary note, I would remind you to beware of WP:WH, as I've noticed your edits on several pages attributed to kmhistory. But I'm bestowing this award so you know your efforts are not going unnoticed. Cheers —Eustress ^talk 00:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... :) I'm not trying to hound her, but she's had a history of problem contributions, so I figured giving her new article a look as prudent - which is how I noticed it was full of copyvios, in addition to her own COI with the organization. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hunger Games

At this site they have confirmed news of tracks included in the film so why is the possible tracks ludicrous. http://hungergamesdwtc.net/2012/03/credits-for-the-hunger-games-reveal-songs-included-in-the-film-links-to-listen-too/ AND HERE http://hungergamesmovie.org/category/hunger-games-soundtrack/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinhaff (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are fansites - they are not reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

They have sourced it from Lionsgate themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinhaff (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please even report to UAA if necessary

Hello, you recently put a deletion tag on User:Classified4newspaper's page. I agree with you. It would be more nice if you would be reporting to WP:UAA, as it violates the username policy (Promotional). No need to report, I've already reported. Thanking you, Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 14:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Zenprise: Multiple Issues

Hello Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to review the Zenprise article. I have made edits to the page (removed some claims and provided evidence of others) to resolve the issues you raised. I'm appreciate and welcome further suggestions and critique when you have a moment. Thanks.

Shogrefe (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

re: Multiple issues usage

Hi Mike. This was a bit redundant; as per the {{Multiple issues}} documentation: "Please do not insert tags that are too similar or redundant with each other" - I'd say one of those would have sufficed! Cheers, Nikthestoned 17:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you an email. DH85868993 (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Toaha Qureshi MBE DELETION

Hi Mike

Thanks for leaving the trail. I got the message yesterday that the article may be deleted in ten days and then it was deleted the very next day. I have refernces to include from credible sources. However the question is HOW and WHERE to add as ther articel has already been deleted.

Please advise,

Kind regards,

Freud

Freudmiller (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, just flagged it for possible deletion - if someone added a speedy to your article later I have nothing to do with that. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Deletions

"I can do whatI I like, and you have shown no real indications of notability for this on its own - it is up to you to convince us otherwise on the talk page"

Seriously?..

I joined Wikipedia three days ago, read the rules, and apparently know more about this website's policy than a frequent editor who has been here for many years. Contrary to what you say, you can't simply "do what you like" on here. There are rules, and I suggest you read them before deleting articles that I have written.

Flagging is fine, speedy deletion requests are also fine, using the talk page is fine, but arbitrarily deleting articles like you have been is not, because you are not an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghudner (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlike you, I do know what I am doing here. Unlike you, I know that what I was doing was a redirect, not a deletion. I do not need to be an admin to redirect pages that I feel are not notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Choke the Word

Hi, Mike.

You've marked Choke the Word for deletion due to questionable notability and lack of results in a Google news search. I was wondering if the band's recent nomination in Westword newspaper's 2012 Music Showcase competition (as noted here) would be sufficiently notable for a stay of execution?

Thanks!

Shawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by XON2000 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

TameraSmith

Mike,it seems as if you may have a personal problem with some of the people referenced because you are continuously "finding issues" with the articles. Are you a staff member of Wikipedia? If so please direct me to the supervior so that I can fix the issue. This is the 4th time you have been noted to have a bias against my submissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TameraSmith (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is discouraging me from utilizing Wilkepedia as a company. If they are having such issues for good service is to provide better solutions for the problemes. I'm beggining to feel singled out for an unknown reason. Marlon Campbell is a legitimate filmmaker and all people and references are extremely I am beggining to feel you have a personal problem with the articles. The situation will be handeled. Thank you for your concern and I will update the quality of the referenced issues to meet your company standards.- Tamera Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by TameraSmith (talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

reliable source

excuse me, but we are the reliable source. We own the name "TwinSister" under trademark laws with copyright and have so informed this other Twinsister who has repeatedly neglected to make a change in their name. They know they must change their name, but for some reason, decided not to. We have been fair and understanding and even told them to add one or two words, but they have still asked to share "our" name. This can not be done. There is only one "TwinSister" and they are form PA not NY, as there is only one "Kiss", one "Heart", one "Styxx"....you get the point. If they do not comply, there will soon be a lawsuit.It has been 8 months! blessings, linda holt of The holt Twins & TwinSister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holt Twins (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the link to the trademark page- http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4007:9mmc9q.2.1 This is the link to the copyright page(Logo)- http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=twinsister&Search%5FCode=FT%2A&CNT=25&PID=XsLC_olrKAuPEvj6EHefdwl3&SEQ=20120316113432&SID=4

www.holttwins.com www.cdbaby.com/all/twinsister www.myspace.com/holttwins www.facebook.com/TwinSisterBand musicallyyours@dejazzd.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holt Twins (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

OptrixHD

Mike,

Can you assist me? Can you tell me exactly why our Wiki has been deleted? I understand you are not supposed to advertise companies on here, but I see companies (competitors) Go Pro on here and a company I used to work for Sensear here as well. Does the wording need to be changed? Is it my user name?

Thanks in advance,

Pam Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.108.22 (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mike,

For the moment I'm a little lost reading your message. My english is not as perfect as I wish but I keep on learning. I really don't understand all the Wikipedia rules...

... So could you help me to find the right way to avoid to be deleted.

Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards. Cool-morning-lights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.9.200 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ON24

Hi Mike,

Regarding ON24, the current Wikipedia entry does not reflect the company at all. It was last updated in 2009.

Since that time, ON24 has been covered by the Associated Press, AFP, CNET, and Success magazine.

I tried to update the entry based on the below copy and citations, but I was told I was writing an advertisement. What can I do to make this current?

Thatcurtis (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Curtis

The text you added was unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia does not exist to create a separate marketing platform for companies. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MikeWazowski. You have new messages at Talk:Samuel H. Wood.
Message added 03:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

deletion of THE PEOPLE'S FILM FESTIVAL

Please take a look at the content of my recent posts. If you feel once again that this is in violation,kindly inform us of WHAT EXACTLY IS acceptable and what is not. We have looked at other film festivals and their postings and tailored ours along the same line. Please review other similar festivals before deleting our postings without a more detailed explanation instead of the general excuse you used to delete our last posts. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tptp149 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to List of film festivals in North and Central America, you'll notice that every other festival listed has an article, or has references to reliable third party sources - your entry did not. Thus, it was removed. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your treatment of Kmhistory

Look before you give him templates. Check the talk page of Samuel's article again before you use the erroneous SPS tags, and make sure you're using the correct definition. He really feels bitten by you; the last thing we want is to lose him.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous? She is the one in the wrong here, Jasper. Don't forget, she's the one who engaged in lies and deception to keep a puff piece article about herself. She's brought this on herself by not understanding how things work, and denying her own COI in various articles. Her original additions to the Wood article were some of the most blatant promotional copy I've seen recently. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

She's changed now. Your definition of WP:SPS and the templating was completely unhelpful. If someone has a COI you guide them, not shove them off. In either case it isn't worth an edit war over.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the self-published tag was restored accidentally with a rollback - however, the primary sources tag is valid, and if she removes it again I will treat it as vandalism. The reasons for it have been explained to her, but she refuses to accept them. This is not my problem - until the situation is corrected, I will restore the proper tag. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, she disputes your concern, and I do to. Please take this to the article talk page. Primary does not mean focused on, it means non-third-party.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There are six primary references in the article, direct links to articles written by Wood. These are primary sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Then be specific and point them out; 6 is not too many out of the 20ish or 30ish total I see.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Gordon Swaby

I added yet another citation from a reputable source. 6 sources a few of which are from two of Jamaica's leading newspapers. He's also made a lot of radio and TV appearances. What else do I need before the messages are removed?Ojamaican (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter N Peregrine

Hi Mike,

I have made the additions you asked on the page I created for Peter N. Peregrine. Could you look at it again and see if they are sufficient? Thank you,

KingH81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingh81 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Added several additional external citations to establish notability. Please remove the tags you placed on the entry. Thank you. Kingh81 (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dick Cheech

I know this man and he is a friend of mine, I made this page for him, how to i correctly source him without being deleted, as you have proposed this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badretro (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait...

Why did you redirect the Xbox Portable page to Xbox? User:KuhnstylePro/sig

Because there's no indication the Xbox portable is a real item at this time - would you prefer I flag it for deletion as a possible hoax? MikeWazowski (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Jay Jason

Hi Mike: Appreciate your comments and have added this to my talk page. Please let me know if what I stated is correct, and it is OK to summarize Wiki rules with quotations. Having been learning quick on this but still need guidance from experts like you.--Jaytribute516 21:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) I have looked over the guidelines on conflict of interest, and I would like to mention that Jaytribute516 is Leonard Jason, the son of Jay Jason. So, clearly, I have posted material about my dad, who died over a decade ago. When I developed my first essay, I was rather new to Wiki, and learned through many suggestions for Wiki editors to support statements. I also was provided many sources of information from 14 different people, who all made some changes or suggestions. For example, as noted above, Alansohn, added: "My Favorite Jokes"], Parade (magazine) in The Modesto Bee. Alansohn also made me aware of the google news, and doing a search on that allowed me to provide references to many other statements such as Jay Jason performing in Australia and other places. Material on Kramer was sent to me by someone who had read the Wiki article, and I then added it, and the citation. Deryck Chan in particular worked with me to reformat the references so that they would be in accordance with Wiki guidelines, and he also helped me in reorganzing labels and sections throughout. I am very grateful for this editor's contributions. Chinesegal009 and Daryl005 helped the article with re-arranging sections so that they were more logical and flowed better. I thank them. I also had contacts with 4 librarians at different institutions that worked with me to provide documentation of different statements, and to them I am most thankful. So, although I put the initial article together, there have been over 10 different people who have added suggestions or references or ideas, and these are documented on the history page. I might add that at least 15 other people have provided me information over the past few months, and many of these people were not familiar with Wiki editing, so I took their ideas or references supplied and added them to the article. I hope that his does provide some account of my part in the composition of this article. I have also checked conflict of interest guidelines and provide them below so that others can be more familiar with them, as I certainly was not when I began this process--Jaytribute516 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

From Wiki guidelines that Jaytribute516 is citing for others to see:--Jaytribute516 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC) "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously. Close relationships Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower, and collaborator of Marx. Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area. The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse, and a biography should preferably not be written by the subject's spouse, parent, or offspring. However, an expert on a given subject is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

One last issue that has been brought up has to do with this point, having a neutral point of view, and again I would like to quote from Wiki so that others who see this page can understand what this means--Jaytribute516 13:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC) "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)