User talk:Mike18xx

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

Images[edit]

Hi, Mike18xx. I guess it was you who copied several images of paintings by Nikolai Getman to wikimedia from Jamestown Foundation site. You seem to had a contact with the president of this foundation. More images were downloaded, and they were used in many WP articles, after receiving a permission from the foundation - please see here. However, a deletion discussion took place in wikimedia, and the images may soon be deleted on the insistence of User:Mikkalai and some others. Could you please contact someone from the foundation again and help to resolve this? I would greatly appreciate that. Warm regards, Biophys (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All images by Nikolai Getman including yours have been deleted, thanks to Mikkalai.Biophys (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

January 2011[edit]

Please do not add unsourced or non-reliably-sourced content, as you did to Ken Starr, Vince Foster, and Suicide of Vince Foster. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AV3000 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • My edits contained four references to credible sources, once of which includes the direct verbal commentary of US attorney and Starr lead investigator Miguel Rodriguez (who resigned in disgust) -- and I disapprove of you using my talk page to tell lies.Mike18xx (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you add non-reliably-sourced material, as you did at Ken Starr, Vince Foster, and Suicide of Vince Foster, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. "Failure of the Public Trust" is self-published, and neither World Net Daily nor AIM are reliable sources. Please, read WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:NEWSORG, and WP:SOURCES. (I note from your previous blocks that you're already aware of WP:3RR.) AV3000 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Av3000, would it be possible for you and I to have an intelligent conversation -- or must it proceed straightaway to histrionic spasms of dire, impending doom delivered at the edict of Big Cheeses wielding Olympian power? Several points:
1) The matter of WND is not as cut-and-dried as I imagine you would like the casual browser of this user-talk page to instantly surmise. For example, the summation of your link to the WND noticeboard is, quoting, with weasel words bold-faced by me: "Consensus appears to be that World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material....
-- The weasel words indicate a LACK of clear consensus, while the following: "...individual citation(s) evidencing WND "unreliability" have not, thus far, been provided. As to whether or under what criteria/circumstance WND might be considered WP:RS, opinion is divided.}" explicitly CONFIRMS a lack of consensus.
2) You have not provided any backing to maintain that AIM is NRS either -- for the sake of argument, I shall assume that a page exists within the Byzantine depths of the Noticeboard, but will also assume that it is just as ambiguous and shot full of self-contradictions, weasel words, and completely unveiled bad motives as the WND one.
3) Miquel Rodriguez is more than a reliable source -- he is, in fact, a primary source; it is not possible for you to logically maintain that the direct audio commentary of Kenneth Starr's former lead investigator in the Foster death is not pertinent because it is hosted by AIM -- unless you're maintaining that it's faked or distorted in some way. -- Are you?
4) Similarly, the FOIA lawsuit (which went all the way to the Supreme Court) by attorney Allen Favish is, by definition, noteworthy. With the lawsuit's author rendered noteworthy on the subject material, then any media organ directly quoting him must also be regarded as reliable (if only situationally) -- unless, once again, you're maintaining that they're lying -- and I do not believe you are prepared to insist upon such.
5) Regarding Failure of the Public Trust -- Patrick J. Knowlton, a primary witness in Fort Marcy Park, is by definition noteworthy and a reputable source of his own disagreement with factual statements asserted in the Starr Report, as is, by subsequent logical extension, his other written commentary on the subject (he shares author credit of Failure of the Public Trust with his attorney John Clarke and researcher Hugh Turley), in re: WP:SPS "....Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." -- The FBI, which interviewed him, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which heard Knowlton's case for submission of an "Addendum" to the Starr Report, qualify in conferring notability.
6) The proper place for this discussion is the talk pages of the articles themselves.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Pieczenik[edit]

I've fixed the nomination page and added the notification template to the article, but in the future, please follow the process listed at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was slowly figuring it out, but you beat me to it!--Mike18xx (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Once it gets listed publicly on the main listings page, you'll often have someone come along to help (or hinder) the process. That's the reason you usually list it last. MrKIA11 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Eucalyptus[edit]

Your recent editing history at Eucalyptus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon (talkcontribs) 06:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark, I see similar warnings on your own user talk page, and so consider your posting this here after two reversions to be flagrant hypocrisy.--Mike18xx (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Crown Fire[edit]

Copyright problems with Crown fire[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Crown fire, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p481. As a copyright violation, Crown fire appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Crown fire has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Crown fire and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Crown fire with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Crown fire.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.


You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

While there is sufficient block history to warrant a much longer block length, that appears to have all been five years ago. I've only set this for 24 hours. Kuru (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I have satisfied my curiosity that little has changed at Wikipedia in the last five years. If anything, the flagrant BS is even more deeply ingrained than ever before.
Take it away, Tycho, you prophet of the ages:--Mike18xx (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I Have The Power, by Tycho - Fri, December 16 2005 - 07:58 AM
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues. As a model of how and where distributed intellect fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive.
When we were first considering making Epic Legends Of The Hierarchs available as a publicly manageable satirical metanarrative, we dropped the basic timeline on Wikipedia because I liked the way their software went about things. Of course, a phalanx of pedants leapt into action almost immediately to scour - from the sacred corpus of their data - our revolting fancruft.
That's okay with me. I wasn't aware they thought they were making a real encyclopedia for big people at the time, and if I had, I'd have sought out one of the many other free solutions. I had seen the unbelievably detailed He-Man and Pokémon entries and assumed - like any rational person would - that Pokémaniacs were largely at the rudder of the institution.
I am almost certain that - while they prune their deep mine of trivia - they believe themselves to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working.
Responses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this: the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.
Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.
The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calcium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shell (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) 11:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Weston A. Price Foundation[edit]

Please do not edit war to add one person's personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Weston A. Price Foundation. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ronz, I have no time for this nonsense. I've browsed the Talk page of that article, and know exactly what BS games are going on over there.
Knock it off.--Mike18xx (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Care to share your insight into the situation beyond edit-warring and making demands of others? --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as you're being ably spanked on the talk page already...no. ("No time", remember?) ....I'll just nuke that garbage if I see it again.
Say, I have a suggestion: instead of futility wasting your time (since you lack consensus) trying to make this article crappy, why not broaden your horizons to other articles no one is paying attention to and make them crappy? I promise not to follow your contribs for three days; and, if you refrain from posting on my talk page again (which generates an email alert to me), I might have entirely forgotten about you by then. Would that be fabulous? Just imagine what you could get away with.--Mike18xx (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Herkimer diamonds[edit]

Herkimer diamonds are quartz crystals from a NY location. Plus the Herkimer diamond website is not a WP:reliable source, it is a commercial website promoting/selling their quartz crystals. Inclusions in quartz from a dolostone are hardly evidence for abio petroleum. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that.--Mike18xx (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of 1 month from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

IP block exempt[edit]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Elockid (Talk) 18:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am granting your account IP block exempt so that you may edit after your block has expired. Please take great care. IP block exempt can be revoked if misused and you may not be able to edit as a result. Elockid (Talk) 18:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Strike that. You don't seem to be editing from an IP permissible under policy. Elockid (Talk) 22:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember when Wikipedia used to be fun and contained articles which were actually expository instead of the political bullshit circus it is now.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oliver Stone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revisionism (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) 11:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Radosh criticism[edit]

The difference is that the Gorbachev quote is presented as his opinion without comment. You can cite Radosh's criticism, but you can't paraphrase his points without using Radosh's own words in quotes, or else you're violating neutrality of the main text. I'm satisfied with the changes you've made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.78.110 (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Davis calls for 100,000 soldiers[edit]

"In his message of April 29 to the rebel Congress, Jefferson Davis proposed to organize and hold in readiness for instant action an army of 100,000." That was after Ft Sumter and the war had begun. It was too late to be "provocative". see John George Nicolay; John Hay (1890). Abraham Lincoln: A History. p. 264.  Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • That source is incorrect if it infers that April 29 was the first date of such proclamation.--Mike18xx (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
What source are you using? Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
See the Confederate States Army article. The first call for a 100,000-man army was March 6. (It is very likely that the speed at which the South could field such a sizable command relative to the far-flung Northern armies was decisive in leading the Confederacy to its strategic blunder at Sumter, and subsequent loss of their tenuous nation.) --Mike18xx (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
we can't use Wiki as a source. That statement is unsourced and it includes the state militia units which already existed & did not mean new soldiers. And who says it was provocative? Rjensen (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
(1) Considering that, mere minutes ago, you did not know that "it" even existed, you suddenly seem well informed on the matter. :-P. (3) I couldn't care less whether the militia were already existent, or Davis was throwing pennies down a wishing well. (2) You don't think it's provocative when a latently hostile polity announces plans for an army which is six times bigger than yours?--Mike18xx (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Davis did not call for 100,000 troops on March 8. Instead the CSA Congress passed a law that authorized him --at some unspecified future date--to call up no more than 100,000 men. The Secty of War asked for $ "in the event that it should become necessary o organize such a force." see United States. War Dept (1900). Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. p. 134.  Rjensen (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Who said anything about March *8*? But no matter; as I really am not interested in entertaining revisionism on my talk page. Other articles and sources disagree with you.--Mike18xx (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Two-part edit challenge.[edit]

At 'American Civil War', I have posted what I hope can be received as a balanced account of the Confederate 100,000 using all four sources among Mikexx, Rjensen and TVH at American Civil War#Mobilization. [Before I read an additional source Rjensen posted, so it remains a draft even among these three editors.]
- Please read the note all-the-way-through, I ALWAYS need sympathetic assistance on notes, it's like I have a blind spot -- I'm a "digital migrant" not a "digital native". So shoot me -- "they kill horses don't they" -- that's a literary allusion and metaphor and English-major-stuff I don't know about either -- so, anyway,
- I mean to restore the 4-paragraph INTRODUCTION section with conributions from Mikexx, JimWae, Rjensen and TVH. Omitting mobilization detail in the Introduction. Detail relating to the November 1860 through March 1861 mobilization ramp-up to an important mid-19th century war of mass-conscript armies -- BOTH armies matching or excelling Napoleon's armies in important respects of world military history -- are intended to be developed in the linked 'Mobilization' section.
- At the 'Mobilization' section, the idea is that ALL vantage points can be written up in a more accurate narrative that is ALSO more compelling than a one-note drum beat. Like the song said, "nobody's right, if everybody's wrong". I will try to bring along JimWae and Rjensen also, resulting in a WP:LEAD four-paragraph article Introduction to meet peer-review critique for article GA status. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Manga links- and cancer of the scrotum[edit]

No this isn't another complaint- but do be careful- I can't believe that manga is treating scrotum rot in a happy and light hearted way. If you do have any manga showing the development of the lesions- please DON'T email them to me!

But over to sweeps in general- I have done what you should have done which is to integrate it into the text. It fits in rather nicely. The article IMO is mistitled and should follow the English name. I upped it to a start- but it does need more explicit references. I assume it came from the book in the External links- you must have it so go in there and add a few page numbers- use the Chimney sweep article to find out how. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The literal translation of Romeo's Blue Skies has relative cachet over the seldom-used English studio title (and this is so because the anime was not initially shown or sold in English-speaking markets. As "Romeo's Blue Skies" is the only video adaption of the life a chimney sweeps, I thought is a relevant "See also". The show does NOT treat chimney sweeps' carcinoma in a "light-hearted" way at all -- seeing as one of the main characters dies from it (rather than "scrotum rot", the disease is presented as infecting the lungs, causing him to have difficulty breathing.--Mike18xx (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Total loss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homes (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) 11:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring warning: Global warming[edit]

Hi, so you've been edit warring to include some stuff on magnetic fields in the article. Please discuss the changes on the talk page and don't keep edit warring to include them. You're now at 2 reverts by my count and you don't want to do more than 3.... WP:BRD and all that, emphasis on the D. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. *Two*, which means it's not edit-warring -- and I *did* discuss the changes on the article talk page....so get lost.
(I am in no mood for unctuous duplicity today. Sue me a river.)--Mike18xx (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

--John (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're a moron rubber-stamping a liar's claims, and have thereby shirked and abused your administrator authority. I see little reason not to hold both of you in complete contempt.--10:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Signature weapon for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Signature weapon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature weapon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)