User talk:Mike Rosoft

Archived discussions:

April Fool's Jokes

Mike Rosoft, please understand me. I'm trying very, very hard to be civil. April Fool's jokes are a time-honored tradition on Wikipedia. Editors devote 364 days of every year to serious contributions. I think it's OK to have fun on day 365. I promise to help clean up after April Fool's Day is over. The definition of vandalism is a bad-faith edit. I'm not trying to harm the encyclopedia. I do recognize your adminship and experience, though, and it's OK to agree to disagree. ChromaNebula (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for removing vandalism from my user page. Enjoy! Denisarona (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

About Asif's relativistic charge and field equations

I had seen you had proposed it for deletion. I have nominated the article for deletion and you can have your opinion here. Shriram (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Ubuntu releases: Revision history

Hi!

I just wanted to mention that it is SudoGhost who is doing the edit problem, because he is not reading before changing.

I just added link to animals that Ubuntu creators picked.

Reference to that is even on that page!

All the best SilverWolf7 (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

EC on Simmelian tie

I am sorry, I couldn't figure out what your edit was changing, so I overwrote it with mine (it was a major edit for me). I am now done editing, so feel free to change anything you'd like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was fixing a link to Triad (sociology); I see you had fixed it yourself, too. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

al-Farabi

You are showing no respect to the people of Islamic faith by putting the pictures of Islamic scholars on the public page, please write me back an explanation of why you reverted that last change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.13 (talk) 30 May 2012

This would appear to be user talk:Majilis Jim1138 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

OK so I see you or your bot has reverted all my changes made to the Ancient Hawaii article. Unless you are Hawaiian or an anthropologist in this area of study would you mind reverting the changes back? The article is horrible in it's original state. Aside from reading like it was written by an 8th grader it's full of un-cited BS, unprofessional grammar, and missing actual useful information. Mahalo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.201.128 (talk • contribs)

Page Deletion - FYIcode

Dear Mike, I am so sorry that our page was viewed as a promotional site. However, this page is not one of promotion but a page of a communication evolution. Just in the way QR Codes became a way for people to communicate messages, FYIcodes are the same but better, they allow 'any user' with 'any telephone' a way to access and spread their messages. This is along the lines of what a QR code partially offers and we are only trying to document the evolution of a new technology. I did not have enough time to fill in the gaps and the sources to meet your requirements. Please respectfully reinstate so that we may have the opportunity to speak accurately on the behalf of a new historical communication technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnrenee14 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the Jane Seymour article. I used rollback but could not undo the layers of vandalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Music director, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. WaggersTALK 13:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My faith in humanity

Has been restored when a new user named TrollTrollTrollTroll can be indeffed after only 3 vandal edits. My, my. Good for you![1] SBHarris 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

botness?

Saw you deleted one of my works in progress. Are you a bot or a real person? Gizmo.AT (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

He is a real person. I advise trying harder to get his attention; it is surprising that he deleted an article in progress.--Jackson Peebles (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello, Mike Rosoft! Your contributions reverting, warning, and reporting vandals have not gone unnoticed. Thank you, your expertise is appreciated. But have you ever wondered what will happen when you're gone? Who will patrol for vandalism when you're on a WikiBreak, or just asleep? Never fear! Because now you can help train the next wave of Counter-Vandals. Consider signing up to be an instructor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy today! Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Smiggle

Hey, can you un-salt Smiggle, which you were the last peson to delete in September 2010? There are reliable, secondary sources about the store that exist, and I would like to write the article from scratch. Thanks. Till I Go Home ^{talk stalk} 02:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much:) I have since created the article. Till I Go Home ^talk 15:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Road Sign articles for Botswana and South Africa

Would you mind explaining to me why you deleted these two articles? Yes Jermboytold2 was a sock (which was a shame, cause I actually appreciated him creating pages for my signs so I didn't have to), but all the road signs (except one or two) were made by myself, and they are sourced on their description pages, so your deletion summary saying "completely unreferenced" is not actually true. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like this time, the road signs themselves are legitimate. However, the articles are unreferenced and little more than galleries of road signs; they would have been more suited to Wikimedia Commons. (If you are interested in them, I can recover them into your user space as drafts.)
  The user in question has had a history of creating articles about road signs containing signs from different countries - at best, without verifying that they actually exist in the other countries and have identical design; at worst, as straightforward hoaxes. (Plus joke pages about non-existent countries like Hotsapore and Rafid.) For this reason, I do not see him as trustworthy. (See User talk:Santapo.)
  As User:Jermboytold, he created a couple of unsourced articles about rod signs; I asked him to pick one, I'd recover it as a draft into user space, and then he'd be able to work on it and provide references. He responded by vandalizing The Land Before Time (adding non-existent countries), and (after I blocked him) returning as User:Jermboytold2. This time, I deleted his contributions and blocked him as a sockpuppet with prejudice. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the sock problem, and wish this user hadn't resorted to that. I created a road sign article myself some time ago for Zimbabwe, but since then my work on making road signs that we do not have on the project has went from minor hobby to a full-fledged job, and when the user created the pages, it was a time saver for me. I understand now why you deleted them, and I can create them in the future properly and with sources and links, I just wished to know why you deleted them. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually if you don't mind you can delete the user space pages you made for me now, I have created the Botswana and South Africa road sign articles now with proper references. Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and a <delete>small</delete> new, larger request

Hello Administrator Rosoft!
Thank you for your kindness in visiting my talk page today, and clarifying how I could correctly apply categories. My request is very small, and may be completely ignored, or at most, be your very lowest priority. Could you tell me where I was mis-applying categorization syntax? It would help me to learn. But if you have too many other things to do, just ignore this, and accept my thanks for taking the time to visit and help me! --FeralOink (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings to you, Administrator Rosoft! I'm back! NOW I understand what that pertained to! Thank you so much for clearing up the "vague"-ly anomalous addition of a user page as a category in a Wikiproject. I didn't know what to do about it at the time, and completely forgot about the matter between April and late June. You handled it with finesse, from what I could piece together. I am appreciative.

I have a new request (you were so helpful once already ;o) Background: I read an article yesterday, in Scientific American, about a website which is propagating misinformation about non-mainstream (to put it mildly) paleontology. This wasn't one of those fluffy SciAm articles, but rather, more like the sort they used to write back in the 1980's. As evidence of the insidiousness and pernicious effect of the situation, there was an example given, of how one of the fabricated "creatures" even has an entry here, in Wikipedia. And sure enough, it does. The WP article references a Royal Society publication, but without any link. I dug for the source somewhere online, finally found it, and confirmed that there was no such reference to this creature, nor the "scientist" (I think he was fabricated too) in the Royal Society proceedings. In fact, that citation is associated instead with completely different published work done by people with PhD's who work for the Museum of Natural History in New York City, about 20 years ago.

Unfortunately, the fabricated creature was entered in at least one of those online biological taxonomy databases (I noticed that too). I have the URL etc. I don't know that it was done with any ill-intent. Obviously, I am rather horrified that the taxonomic record of evolution that has been so painstakingly created is being undermined by a single flakey website. But that is not our concern here, and I am not a bioinformatics person, nor a taxonomist. What IS our concern, I believe, is the fabricated creature (as I am referring to it) article, here on Wikipedia. Of course, I could just be BOLD, and delete the thing, but it has a lot of visibility at the moment, and I wanted to get some input from someone such as yourself first. I can provide URLs and quotes from sources as corroboration, but I don't want to just deposit the mass here on your talk page without some prior notice. Or should I just be quiet and not rock the boat? The article in Wikipedia is not the cause of the larger problem. It is merely one consequence of the huge popularity of the website that was the subject of the SciAm article. --FeralOink (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Notice

Thank you, for your help regarding page notice.But i really do not know how to add this notice on my talk page.Can you tell me the course of how to add this page notice in my talk page,so that when any user edit my talk page those notice could appear. once again Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^ϟ 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fajita63

Wasn't this block a bit hasty? I know it was clearly spam, but it was only one single edit. I don't believe one edit to be warrant for an indef. Cloud you please take another look? Regards. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted a response, but then reverted it? Something wrong? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

Content issues belong on the article's talk page NOT on user's talk pages. Your post on my page could appear to be an ill-disguised threat. If its content has substance, post it on the article talk page. So, please quote me the court verdict that uses the word "terrorist". And post it on the article talk page, NOT here and NOT on my talk page! Meowy 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

York Sports Village

Hi

Why did you delete this page when it has relevant information and more to be added, and it had been contested for with in space of 1 minute you deleted it i don't thats fair at all. Osbaldwickparish (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Ugly >:l Hello! I'm Shy Zorua! 16:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Grey alien

I semi-protected and blocked them all - it's from a school. Ref/del'd the edit with someone else's phone number. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified Flying Objects revert

Hi Mike. Please note and feel free to contribute this discussion on the Unidentified Flying Objects talk page. I intend to eventually remove the reference to the ET Hypothesis from the intro to the article. A UFO is a report. The ET Hypothesis is a theory to explain the reports. The ETH is not important to UFOs on a definitional level. And as skeptics everywhere agree, the conflation of the word UFO with the concept of alien spaceships is illogical and a huge step that is not justified. Therefore we should not start an encyclopedia article on UFOs by making that same association! Clotten (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

France in the Middle Ages

Consider 3-hr protection--seems to be a school. Thank you. Mindy Dirt (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Akash Maharaj

It seems that User:Jonfoerster is basically alleging a WP:BLP violation. Shouldn't we let his substantially edited version (which still leaves in the core of the allegations) in until we've had a chance to check that the sources back everything up properly? Morwen - Talk 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This article does NOT rise to a level of notability. Most of the source information is from a college newspaper, whose author makes several inferences and personal conclusions that are presented in the Wiki entry as fact. Since Akash Maharaj is not a notable person -- nor is the alleged crime particularly noteworthy -- the entry seems suspicious and potentially personally motivated. Wikipedia does not publish articles on every small crime that makes the news and thus this shouldn't be published either.

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Might not mean much coming from a newbie, but this is just in appreciation of the fact that you deleted two consecutively created joke pages in the intervals between when I loaded them and when I clicked "submit query" on Twinkle. Now that's what I call speedy deletion! — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli

Extended content

Hi, Can you please help protect Robert Agostinelli's page from being sabotaged. Its very clear to see whats happening here. 1 user using several different accounts is purposely trying to damage the reputation of Robert Agostinelli and this is wrong and unacceptable. Please see "Talk Page": The "Robert Agostinelli" page is being sabotaged and vandalized by 1 user using these 3 separate accounts: Ssentif , Petroskinov1294 , ELTSEN . Please block this users and their IP address. All information in Robert Agostinelli's page is 100% accurate and has been sourced from highly reliable links which include only factual information. It is unacceptable to have this pages abused maliciously by this User or any other. Thank you for helping protect and safe guard this information. If you read through the content and look at the sources you will notice that the information is all 100% accurate and sourced however this other user is writing negative feedback based on nothing. Please take the time and do the proper checks before jumping to conclusions and undoing the hard earned work of this man through his long career. Please send me a message if you need clarification on ANY and ALL points. Once again thank you for your time and help. David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David3651 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Hi Mike, I can see you've protected the page. I appreciate your help. However i am certain come tomorrow this person will further attempt to "de legitimise" Robert Agostinelli. Long term, what is the solution in dealing with this vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David3651 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Hello Mike: there appear to be some PR accounts relentlessly scrubbing the Robert Agostinelli article of any new information and related sources, particulary those which are in any way negative. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's goal is to be complete in the event that reliable sourcing is available and not just a guarded PR page for the subjects' personal use and promotion. The accounts in question are DataChecker1, David 3651 and wsjnewsupdater and have histories indicating their sole purpose is to scrub this entry of any potentially adverse sourcing. Would it be possible to revert back to my latest version by Ssentif which includes the continually scrubbed well sourced edits and lock in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssentif (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Hi Mike, As you can see this person (Ssentif) is quite dedicated in damaging Mr. Agostinelli's profile by purely trying to add negative and conflicting information based on sources with no factual content not to mention significantly outdated and based on speculation. It is important that Wikipedia protect articles from exactly this kind of malicious, jealous and negative input. I trust you will take the necessary time to do the proper research in establishing the facts and once and for all banning this User and their respective IP address. Once again thank you for your time and help with this matter. David — Preceding unsigned comment added by David3651 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Note: This is more an editing dispute than vandalism (though I agree that Ssentif's additions are poorly sourced and should not be included in the article in this way). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC) David3651 Mike i appreciate you taking the time in helping with this matter. In terms of handeling this dispute long term how can we ensure that Ssentif does not re add the poorly sourced references and furthermore how can we protect the page come tomorrow when your lock expires? Once again thank you for your time and consideration. David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David3651 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Mike: I have included the suggested new information and relevant sourcing on the article's talk page. I am including them as relevant in advance of what I understand is a pending British news story on the same subject matter. Should we wait for the news item in question to run before including with further sourcing? Or is the sourcing provided on the talk page sufficient as it stands? A best-selling book and two credible news sites certainly strike me as sufficient. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssentif (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Hi Mike, so once again we can clearly see and identify that this person has a personal vendetta against Mr. Agostinelli and is unwilling to step down from their acts of character defamation which is a serious and completely illegal. Legal council and recording of activity IP address and contact will be made. This matter is being taken very seriously as a result of the ongoing situation and abusive belligerent spam and aggressive online harassment. Mike please note, your continued help and support is greatly appreciated. This person will be brought to justice in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David3651 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC) How dramatic. Like we have not seen legal threats on Wikipedia before an an attempt to block new sources. I'd say it happens once a day at least. Mike, this David person continues to obsessively revert even the article talk page. Might I suggest going after the sources of the information, such as a best selling book and two high profile newspapers, rather than the messenger of said facts. It will really do you no good as relaying previously and credibly published information is not illegal. Perhaps we can open the article back up to legitimate edits, however unsavoury David here might find them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssentif (talk • contribs) 10:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC) David3651 Hi Mike, once again thank you for you suport and help with this, its people like you Mr. Rosoft who make Wikipedia a safe place and rest assured i will work day and night as well to improve and keep the information safe that has been built over years and years of hard earned work. I have just donated to the Wikipedia appeal because i know i can help make a difference. As for the destructive user Ssentif it is clear that this user has no grounds to stand on and is desperate to try and poke holes in a man's reputation over simply a personal grudge which of course will never be excepted or tolerated in the slightest way. For the record the so called "two high profile newspapers" are not anything of the sort. Firstly they are both significantly outdated by nearly 3 years and one in particular is merely a sports "gossip" report on speculative opinions of various sporting related stories that bare absolutely no grounds or basis for any concrete information to be drawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David3651 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I would also like to bring your attention to the Talk Page of the Rhone Group page where Ssentif has now been blocked for using SPA's to sabotage and vandalise the articles which have anything to do with Robert Agostinelli. I've done some checking and re-writing on this article, following the recent incident of edit-warring by an editor who is now blocked. The editor was partly correct: there was a lot of marketing fluff and unreferenced claims. That's mostly been cleaned up now, but WP:SPAs keep getting created daily, re-adding the same unreferenced back in, using an oddly similar set of references that mention Rhône Group but don't support the assertions made. So the page will need monitoring to maintain WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC) It is clear that Ssentif is a destructive force on a negatie rampage and this will be countered and we will protect factual content from malicious attacks. Thank you again for everyone's support in particular the Administrators.

I am not interested in the two parties using my talk page as a vehicle for their dispute. Please take it either to the article talk pages (Talk:Rhône Group, Talk:Robert Agostinelli), or ask for help at editing assistance or administrators' noticeboard. I have protected the two articles for 3 days - this should give you enough time to resolve the dispute; and, please, comment on the article's contents instead of accusing each other of ulterior motives. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mike, I'm investigating this as part of an in-depth checkuser case. I'm going to let the protection expire, but would be grateful if you didn't hand out any blocks without dropping me a note - is that OK? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dental instruments

Good idea to move to a more complete article. Added the MedInst template to moved page. Could the Dental instruments page be tabulated to match pages like Instruments used in general medicine ? Sarindam7 13:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Page Deleted

Dear Mr. Mike Rosoft

I'm writing to you in complain of a deleted article. A couple of hours ago you deleted the newly created page Plexonic, which as you claimed is of no indication of importance` even when there are dozens of pages like that one, which are kept "alive". Please, Sir if there are no other reasons let me re-create the article. Thank you in Advance ! --Narek75archives 19:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narek75 (talk • contribs)

• The article indeed failed to assert the company's notability or significance (generalities like that they have made "32 successful games" don't count). It cited no third-party references (coverage in reliable third-party sources is the primary notability criterion; see also the notability guidelines for companes and other organizations). Finally, first-person language ("We develop games ...") is a tell-tale sign of a promotional article. (Use of Wikipedia as a hosting service or for advertising/self-promotion is expressly prohibited by the Wikipedia policies. Such articles may be deleted, and users who persistently misuse Wikipedia may be blocked from editing.)

  If you know about another article that is promotional in nature and/or fails to assert its subject's notability, please tell me; I will nominate it for deletion as well. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

CSD on Jesusian

User promptly recreated article. 4th or 5th time this article has been created over several years. Salt? Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you need to salt the talkpage too. diff Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I have noticed many edits on your part in which you attempted to teach users before taking any drastic measures, and I want you to know that, as a user who was criticized in this civil fashion during my first few weeks on Wikipedia, it makes an incredible difference. Thank you. Jackson Peebles (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

PitBull Johnny Kidd

Dear Sir, Please do not delete the page PitBull Johnny Kidd before it gets started. This is a legitimate person with a legitimate history. Please let's obtain the full article before you judge. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnM69 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't me who initially deleted the article PitBull Johnny Kidd (wrestler). I have reviewed it; I am not sure I would have speedily deleted it, but the article contains no third-party references. (Coverage in reliable third-party sources is the primary notability criterion.) I have only deleted the page, because you kept adding categories to it even after it has been deleted; an article that only contains a category has no point. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Empire of Aryavart

See OCCullens' response at my talk page. I've given him a warning that he's going to have to work really really hard to find solid sources, implying that it won't happen. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Another sock of EthelMermanknows

See Special:Contributions/71.191.9.45, an obvious sock of EthelMermanknows, who Paul Barlow and I can only believe is a HenryVIIIyes. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "St James' Church Briercliffe". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. EarwigBot operator / talk 15:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Himesh84 If you're thinking of bringing him to AN/I or taking any other administrative action against him, the case will be bolstered by this edit summary [2] and this blanking of a page [3]. Qworty (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Qworty, sorry for removing content from your page. I guess I started to edit before page was fully loaded. I tried to rewrite sorry message on your page. But still I can't. Don't know why. That's why I am writing it here Himesh84 14:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I'm not Himesh. Do you see me writing like Himesh? SinhaYugaya (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Teamwork Barnstar Thanks for fixing my talk page! BCorr|Брайен 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Bias actions I recently found that you take some bias action. You have frozen the Kingdom_of_Rajarata page after Qworty's edit. He has deleted lot of references from his edit. Also you ask me to go to talk page and haven't write message on Qworty's page. Also you have biasly keep two strictures for identical,competitive reports LLRC and UNSG's report claiming it is under wikipedia policy. I repeatedly asked what was the policy but you never answered. Also you saying Kingdom_of_Rajarata which established 5 century of BCE and destroyed in 13 century is claiming lasted for 18 centuries. Even references were given to show (what is in the page) it was established in 5BCE destroyed 13century you saying it is differ that 18 centuries. Then I asked how long it is. No answer yet. You have frozen. As a administrator you should keep the reputation at least of the Administrator role. Himesh84 14:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka Hello Mike. If the reverts of this article aren't stopping, the matter should be brought to a noticeboard. The new reverts might be considered to be a failure of Himesh84 to follow the pattern of negotiation recommended in this ANI thread. Some options would be: a new ANI, a formal RFC, or asking some admins who were part of the earlier negotiations such as User:Richwales for their opinion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I am currently writing a request at dispute resolution noticeboard. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for removing that vandalism off of my page !! MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Hrodna Hrodna is a city in Belarus, and in my opinion transliteration must be from Belarusian into English. And "Hrodna" is found on all modern maps in English and German speaking countries. best regards, Zasvab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasvab (talk • contribs) Did you just block SineBot? I'm sure you didn't mean to do that....--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC) You just blocked User:SineBot... Legoktm (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Oops, sorry. I need to be more careful with the "block" button. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Article deletion You know what... My friend Matthew Walls is very unappreciative of you deleting his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyilm (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC) AmericaTowne AmericaTowne should not be deleted. The page is factual. AmericaTowne® is a trademark registered with the United States Office of Patents and Trademarks. This is a fact. The article does not promote but simply describe what AmericaTowne® is, what, where, and why it exist. There is no promotion going on simply factual. If there is an objection concerning the link in the article - the link can be removed. However, the link is directly to the USA Patent Office that proves and verifies the content of the article. Strongly suggest the article remain as is in its factual and non promotional state. Blac80 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Re-creation of deleted page The page you deleted recently has been re-created already, would you like to delete the user page/the article? It's frankly a little confusing for a reviewer like me (and probably others). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC) As I see it, the page is a valid stub; it has been moved to user space - I just deleted the redirect. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Johanna braach page Hi, I have translated this using google and a German dictionary from your Deutsche wikipedia. I'm not sure if you can just make a page that redirects to the original German, or want the translation. SO I shall leave it here for the moment.Happy Hols!Valleyspring (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC) My article Hi.. Why do you think my article is promotional? It is a well-known method of laser-assisted liposuction used worldwide. I was very careful to be objective (not to include any promotion, such as benefits, etc).. Thanks --BiH (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Hamza Khilji Hi, I noticed that you speedied the article after I had remove the tag and AFDed it instead. Normally I am the last person to advocate a lengthy AfD for these types of articles, but in this case a Google search does turn up a surprising amount of info including a fairly professional looking CD cover at [4], so I'm not really certain this is a case for CSD as this person may actually be notable in Pakistan. Travelbird (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Recreation of articles deletected at AFD How do you believe that there is enough difference between the version of UFC 155 that was deleted on Nov 11 and the version you just recreated to warrant overriding an AFD? Look at the version of Nov. 11 and compare it to this one. Essentially no difference.—Kww(talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC) You Rverts on Dilazak Page Hi, I want to have my talk page which is linked ti Dilazak1. Why this page shows up? Moreover, if you are really a Wiki Administrator, Please give few minutes to this page. I f you find it according to Wiki standards, Please remove those annoying tags. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs) Ostnam recreated The fictious micronation of Ostnam which you deleted 30 minutes ago has a page again. Could you delete again -- I'd consider a salt on the page if that's possible. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Another admin deleted it and blocked the editor. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Please help against Vandalism & Racist Approach Dear Mike Rosoft (A worthy Wiki Editor) I respect your last edit of Dilazak Page and I have not changed that. Recent change is by one Moarrikh. I have tried to engage with him for discussion many a times but his replies are arrogant, abusive and reflective of pre-determined racial & biased approach. Even his recent reply on Dilazak1 is an example to that, wherein, he has called me ‘Dilajacki’. Gangs of young Indo-Pak living in UK and other countries actually use these words to abuse each other. Indians will call Pakistanis as ‘Pakis’ and Pakistanis will call Indians as ‘Black Indians’. The same approach has been displayed by Mr. Moarrikh a number of times. His IP indicates his location from ‘Leeds – UK’. I will keep reverting his edits but that is turning into an edit war. Please help me because he is disgracing a community time and again. I request that he should be either warned or blocked from doing so. Regards I have referred the matter for arbitration at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement Dilazak1 07:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs) Grammarly Hi Mike Rosoft, May I know why you "reDeleted" Grammarly? You gave no reason for the deletion, and no talk to me too! I need not direct you to Wikipedia:Administrators#Expectations of adminship and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide#Deleting a page Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC) I had deleted the article as a re-creation after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grammarly. After reviewing it further, I have restored it; I'll probably start a second deletion debate to decide its fate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you, and to convince you that an AfD would not be necessary, please look at these links: ° I Don't Tolerate Poor Grammar — published by Forbes ° Grammarly — reviewed (and worn an award) by TopTenReviews ° Celebrate the National Day On Writing by Posting #WhatIWrite Messages on Twitter — (please look at "Our Collaborators:" down that page) — published by The New York Times, a collaborator ° Cool tool — published by The Hindu Group ° English again in New Year’s resolution? — published by The Korea Times ° Polish Up Your Writing with Grammarly — published by McMaster University, a licensee ° Grammarly Pilot Project: Your How to Guide. — published by University of Saskatchewan, a licensee ° Try 'Grammarly' for help with your writing — published by University of Queensland, a licensee ° Grammarly@edu — published by KDU University College, a licensee ° Grammarly@EDU — published by Henderson State University, a licensee ° Grammarly — published by DeVry University, a licensee ° Grammarly formerly Sentenceworks — (please, click on the title, "Grammarly formerly Sentenceworks" to the left of that page) — published by Walden University, a licensee Thank you again. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Brittney Smooch So you salted the above title? They just created it again at Talk:Brittney Smooch. I guess someone really likes Brittney Smooch. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Page deletion (💑) This page was deleted by you because of an "implausible redirect". I really don't see how two people with a heart in between them can mean anything but love. It would be much appreciated if you could give me a factual answer. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedav (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC) It's extremely unlikely that somebody would enter "💑" to the search bar and mean to find the article love. If anything, it could be redirected to the article/secion about the appropriate Unicode plane. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC) However, there are many of these symbols that redirect to their respective pages, for example 💏 will redirect to "Kiss", 💎 redirects to "gemstone", and 🐢 redirects to "Turtle". If 💑 cannot redirect to love, then the other symbols should have their redirects removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedav (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Stephen Hunt - Timestamps You keep removing the timestamps for Stephen Hunt, despite being told that they were right. See almost any other footballer's wiki page. One is supposed to add the time & date they update the appearances. This is common practise. As I said one either states a time or states "correct as of match played on [date]" I suggest you do some research before twice undoing perfectly good edits. Again, check the pages of other professional footballers, timestamps are there for a reason and it is incorrect to purely have a date. Pippin0490Talk 17:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 29 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disciplined Agile Delivery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scrum (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) 11:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-hoax Template:Db-hoax has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Mark St.Cyr article deletion Dear Mr. Rosoft, For some reason I hit a key that saved the article far before I was finished as to go back and post more cites or references. This is my first attempt at an article so I may have gone overboard with dialogue. I didn't know or understand about wipkipedia referencing itself so I will change that. I will attempt creating this again while altering my approach. I understand why it was deleted and will try again hopefully with a more acceptable layout. Respectfully, --Veronicavalladares (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Asperity page Hi there, I've tried to improve the Asperity page so that the tags are no longer there, but have encountered the individual that seems to be trying to turn the page into an attack page through Synthesis. Would you mind helping here? Regardless whether or not my edits stay, it would be nice to see this page on my watchlist cleaned up a bit if possible. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 2013 Aurora shooting You deleted my page when I was creating and editing it? I have paraphrased it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagendrapsingh (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) re: Han2007 Given where he went, and that he evidently had trouble with Civility there in November [5], do you think it would be appropriate to pass this along to an admin on Spanish Wilipedia? I'm cross-posting this with Jpgordon since you were the two who have handled the editor's blow up. Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Pigcess what happend to my "pigcess" article. It is a new word in invented; it that wrong? it wasnt a violation of wikipeda was it? Cant people invent words and phrases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielgharvey2013 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Exactly. You can't use Wikipedia to "invent words and phrases"; Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. See WP:NFT for more information. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Camel Apologies for the accidental revert of your revert. I was actually trying to remove the same vandalism that you removed, but your "Huggle" edit beat my "Popups" which then got confused, possibly because of my very slow internet connection. Best wishes. Dbfirs 18:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 2001:5b0:23ff:ef0::3e (talk · contribs · count) Hi, Mike. Thanks for blocking, but could to modify for "not edit talk page"? See this and this. Greetings, Érico Wouters msg 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC) GO SUCK A DICK OK I SPEND SO MUCH TIME IN THAT EDIT AND PHOTOS AND YOU KEEP CHANGING IT FUCKING BASTARDS GO SUCK A DICK!!!!