User talk:Mike Rosoft/archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous - Next

Huggle

Hello Mike Rosoft, I can't seem to get my Huggle working. I have downloaded it but it keeps saying my account isn't enabled. Can you give me some information how to enable this? Thanks in advance. Regards, User:TBloemink/Signature 10:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I was granted rollback rights yesterday, so I don't know why I can't use it - User:TBloemink/Signature 10:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SPLC

What didn't you like about my edit? My edit received a positive rating. Your reversion got a negative rating.Strde (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what you mean by a "positive/negative rating"; in any case what I found to be problematic was the repeated mention that the people were illegal immigrants. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with that? Do you have a problem with the repeated mention of El Salvadorians? What is the difference? The red or green numbers I see next to the latest edits on my watchlist page is the "positive/negative rating". I'd appreciate if you could tell me what these numbers mean?Strde (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume they are changes of the article size in bytes. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will answer the questions I previously asked:

What is wrong with the repeated mention that the people were illegal immigrants? Do you have a problem with the repeated mention that the people are El Salvadorians? What is the difference?Strde (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you don't see any difference ... (Also note that I am not the only editor who considered the tone of the paragraph inappropriate, for the same reason.) If you disagree with the current phrasing of the article, I recommend you to take it to the talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because others agree with you, doesn't make your position right. If you don't have the guts to answer my questions, that is your perogative.Strde (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external links

Why have you removed my external links in the David Sedaris page?58.165.209.222 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message on userpage

Hi. Just wanted to let you know an IP left a message on your userpage, here. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Edwards (sportscaster)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Jeannine Edwards (sportscaster): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Flyguy33 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello, article improvement underway

hello. please do not rv edits on History of Nagorno Karabakh since article improvement is underway. thanks. Gorzaim (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of ShowjuMpersam talk page

I am told that you deleted my talk page, apparently at my request. It was not, it was at the request of a hacker called showjuNpersam. Can ou restore it a.s.a.p. please?

Many thanks

showjuMpersam Showjumpersam (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@8th January 2011 Have seen the recindment, many thanks! Showjumpersam (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


the operator theory, response G. Jagers

Dear Mike Rosoft, thanks for your constructive remarks. I would be very grateful if you would be willing to indicate a few specifics about how to improve the WIKI of the operator theory (line, suggested change...just a few examples). I have indicated some responses to the remarks of the editors of WIKI on the talk page of the operator theory. Your remark that it is a fringe theory should be placed in the context of 17 years of study for obtaining a second PhD (which hopefully gives you some confidence...). That I submitted the WIKI myself is just to prevent erroneous interpretations (I expected WIKI to object because of non-objectivity: but what could I do?, maybe ask wiki-editing to assist?). The angle from which the operator theory analyses complexity is a bit of a surprise to many people, which may be the reason that frew people refer to it -as I hope- YET. Moreover people seem to be shy, precisely because the theory seems to be 'overstretched' (but what can I do??). The theory was on TV in the Netherlands yesterday night, second half of program(see http://weblogs.vpro.nl/labyrint/2011/01/11/technologische-evolutie-2/). I could offer you recommendations of a range of respected scientists in order to support your validation process. Kind Regards, Gerard Jagers op Akkerhuis (how do I find out you react? I am not an experienced WIKI-er) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Delete and Undo? Rechargeable

Why did you delete the sentence "though in practice zero to five recharges is more common"? That was my personal experience with rechargeable alkaline batteries? Can you cite evidence that 5 recharges is typical and 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 charges are not more common than 15+ recharges? My experience was that they often leaked on the first or second recharge. I spoke with the manufacturer who admitted that this was why they are no longer available. Do you have experience or qualifications that justify your use of the DELETE and UNDO operations? 69.216.38.237 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ModerateTy

I think we have a problem developing with this user. First of all, his pattern of edits gives strong indication that he is Awesomerperson97 editing, for some unknown reason, under a new name. But, his edits, and his self-serving justifications, are identical. Somebody needs to set him straight before this gets out of control. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello - edit request

i have generally used caps lock,i did not mean loud voice the film my name is khan is now out of the list AS PER india gross in the sixth place comes rajneeti or in the sixth place both my name is khan and the film magadheera must be included either way irrespective of rankings magadheera grossed more than my name is khan in INR and US dollar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmee3Apples (talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unification of Germany protection

I accidentally conflicted with you on the semi-protection; you had for the remainder of the day, while I had a week. –MuZemike 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and I brought it back down to your length, as this vandalism is concentrated solely on TFAs; no need to extend it any. –MuZemike 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be the other way round: you protected it for a day, while I did for a week. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was reading the move-protection, that's why! –MuZemike 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Of Dan Sweet

Why?? I am constantly adding new things and info to the page

Emmerdaleguru (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway theory

Why did you delete my additions to the Gateway Theory article? I posted a list of some of the major studies of the subject that have debunked it. It was in the proper section, and it listed the best studies ever done. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.73.234 (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway theory again

When you say "casual" do you mean "causal?" Britmax (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make mistakes too. Look at this and see if you can work out what I did wrong. Britmax (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

Hi, can i use a screenshot from Czech TV serie, for example this or this, and use this licensing? Can I? Thanks for your advice. --Zipacna1 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,Mikey.

My name is Miss Olivia Russka,and I live on Planet Mars.If you want to know more,you must read my talk page.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.194.9 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wy haff you deleted my contributions

I said,please read my talk page if you want to know about life on Planet Mars.I bett you didn't know that there was life on Mars! I will now say some words in English and in the Martian langidge; Hello=Yakko Goodbye=Laffiana What=Adomosa Mother=Mam. I am sure the wuurld will be very surprised when they learn there is life on Mars. By the way,I am unmarried and I have no children.Thank you for listening,and please believe me when I say I am from Planet Mars.Laffiana,Olivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.194.9 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Don't you love these kind of people?. Ha ha Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Gamertag123man

I was reviewing this editor’s edits to ensure that they had all been dealt with by other recent changes patrollers and noticed that all of them were either vandalism, or reverting to vandalism. I notice that for this he has been blocked only for one week. My understanding is that it is the norm to block such accounts indefinitely as vandalism-only accounts. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. Thanks also for REVDELing the edits. I didn’t think to ask about that. Glad you did! Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 06:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The Syndic

A long time ago you deleted a page The_Syndic, describing it as "errant nonsense" and giving the reason for deletion that "wikipedia is not a crystal ball". The Syndic is a prize-winning science fiction novel by Cyril Kornbluth, and the page is linked to from his page[1] . I presume the problem with the The_Syndic page is that it didn't clearly identify its content as the summary of a sci-fi novel, rather than an actual prediction of the future. I would like the The_Syndic page to be re-instated: I will make the appropriate edit to clarify that it describes a novel, if necessary.

Fincos (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian Airlines destinations

Hi, can you please help me with the Saudi Arabian Airlines destinations page? The editor keeps removing content and saying it's not allowed by Wikipedia. I don't want to violate the 3 revert rule if it is in good faith. Thanks. Kevinmon•talk•trib 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin McGuinness

Oversight is needed again on this article; more BLP violations. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have deleted the edit in question from the article's history. (Note that I am not an oversighter and can only hide it from non-admin users. If you believe that a full suppression of the edits is needed, contact the oversight mailing list as explained here: Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article you deleted

Hi, I was just going to say sorry about that Minigun 2! article. A friend of mine got into my account without my permission (I know account sharing is prohbited, I tried to keep him off of my account) and was messing around and made an article for an idea I had that does not even exist yet and he hit save age instead of show preview. So I'm verry sorry. :) --Blaguymonkey (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pave the Way Foundation

Hello Mike--Thanks for the correction. Is it relevant that the linked site (CIU) has removed all references to this organization and its founder from their site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrglaw (talk • contribs)

  • Don't think so. It simply seems to be an old article which has been removed from public archives (or simply the site's layout has been changed and the article is still available, from a different address). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh you're fast! Thanks very much. --Nrglaw (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I ad a Blogspot page, which is not a blog but a fan page, to external links?

How does X work?

Thought it might be better on the requestor's page, as he's a new user. WormTT 13:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping to clear some recurring vandalism today at St. Gregory College Preparatory School. Would a semi request be a good idea for that article? Raymie (t • c) 22:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:We are king Canute

FYI - seems like another sock. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Butters Very Own Episode

Why did you undo my addition to the plot of Butters Very Own Episode page? What I added was factually correct. They did write a theme song for the show. Butters also got in trouble for saying "nutsack" in front of his grandma. Why did you remove these correct additions?

Sunny Garcia edit

HI Mark, The Sunny Garcia assault on a local surfer in Burleigh Heads was extensively reported on TV news here with footage of the assault and a few hundred witnesses at the event so I'm not sure why you marked the entry as unverified - should I reference sources? Thanks. Mrpaulb (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh McFadyen

Re what's going on with Hugh McFadyen, please see WP:COI/N#Hugh_McFadyen for some COI issues. Zachlipton (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Bears, 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. Thank you! -- Yaris678 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man. Must have fallen asleep at the wheel there.

Then again, its a bit weird that STiki suggested to me a revert that you made with Huggle. I think it's actually a problem with ClueBot NG, since I was using the feed from that which is taken by STiki... Then again ClueBot didn't revert automatically so I guess it's not that stupid (unlike myself).

Yaris678 (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pancho Villa

What gives? Why did you revert my edit to the Pancho Villa article with no explanation or discussion? The Battle of Columbus page still lists the battle as a defeat for Villa, so why list it as a victory for him at the Pancho Villa page? 206.208.105.129 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have reviewed the page, and it looks like it had been vandalized in the past and your edit was correct. Apologies. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy response! 206.208.105.129 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals at Sun Yee On

Hi Mike. There are still persistent vandals at Sun Yee On. I've just reverted to your last good edit, as I see you've done a couple of times. Let's keep our eye on it. Cossaxx (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlasia Gamboa

Thanks for trying to protect my edits by reverting back to them. But the anon IP is actually me. After writing the article, I have discovered an association or Pearlasia Gamboa with the Italian Mafia, with Philippine violent crime, and internet hacking, (and one of her sons who is acting as a front for her is a "weapons expert"), so I started editing with an IP instead of my own nick. If you have any suggestions as to how to edit without actually endangering myself, please let me know. I wrote the article to try to learn about WP via BLP (I was formerly editing alt med articles to quickly learn WP). Although I have a high edit count, I am actually pretty new, since most edits are on a handful of articles and are in the last few months. I expect the Gamboa article will be edit warred by her agents, as the Melchizedek article was, where it ended up with almost no mention of her or her aliases whatsoever, and made it look like her front man "vice president", David Korem, was running the show. I am going to revert back to the version of my anon IP. Is there any way to draw attention to the article so that if she sends in a bunch of IP goons to blank information she does not want out (assuming she is not in prison or jail right now), so others can protect the article? 71.121.31.183 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you are going to contrib to that article, since you appear to be using your real name, I recommend logging out and using an anon IP. Cheers. - PP :) 71.121.31.183 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thnx PPdd (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright re Gabriel Wilensky

Mike--

Thanks for the note on copyright for "Gabriel Wilensky." I have permission and am getting the info I need to add.

You are quick as usual. Nrglaw (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Oops, looks like I was responding as you were reverting on the false positives page. Feel free to revert my response, and thanks for the username block! 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOtoAV

I was wondering if you could offer some help on this. There's a user at 138.38.32.171 who persists in reverting edits of what he/she believes to be biased material, without consultation on the user talk page. What's the appropriate action to be taken for this, should they be blocked, if so how is that carried out? MWhite 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have already cautioned the user about revert warring; if the user continues, he may be blocked from editing for revert warring and violation of the three revert rule. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming that the user didn't know about the three revert rule, so I am just giving him a final warning. Should he continue, feel free to report him at the edit warring noticeboard. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On April 1st the user 138.38.32.171 removed the section. I have restored it and they havn't removed it again. Just thought you might want to know. Their edit summary was: We've established that this section is selective nonsense. So removed. My edit summary for the undoing of their actions was: (Undid revision 421776876 by 138.38.32.171 (talk) Who is we. If this can be established then section will be re-removed. Thanks). Oddbodz (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Fire

Did you really mean to revert on Friendly fire? You restored the edit that contains erroneous information and an BLP violation. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the first look it seemed that the edit was constructive and that he had just accidentally added the example image to the page. I was using Huggle, so I thought I was reverting myself. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the IP editor is a persistent vandal and sock puppeteer who repeatedly adds the same information based on an outdated report that did not report accurately the circumstances. The article is an accurate reflection of what happened. When I saw your edit summary appeared misleading I thought it was another sock puppet. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hi. You recently posted the following on my wall:

For the last time, please stop revert warring. Users who persistently revert to their preferred version of the article may be blocked from editing for disruption. In particular, there exists the three revert rule: except in case of vandalism or other purely disruptive edits, a user may not revert the same article more than three times within 24 hours. (You have violated this rule, so I strongly recommend you to stop editing the page altogether and take the issue to the talk page. Otherwise, I am going to report you at the revert warring noticeboard.)

Emphasis mine. Now, I have to say that I'm rather baffled, because if you've actually read what it is that I've been removing, it is surely completely obvious that the content in question is not encyclopedic material, but rather a highly selective and biased viewpoint - ie that a majority of people in a certain political party favour a certain political point of view. You will notice that I haven't been touching the section immediately above it which details the actual political parties which have officially come out against AV, since that is a matter of fact and has been presented in a properly factual way.

So what's there to say on the talk page? The other editor is clearly vandalising the article by repeatedly distorting it to present his own political viewpoint (I notice you haven't warned him though for editing the same article more than three times within 24 hours) and I, in line with the principles you yourself gave me, am cleaning it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.171 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's to say on the talk page? Perhaps you should explain why you believe that the section is biased and inappropriate to be included in an encyclopedia.

    You are right that your opponent is also in violation of the three revert rule, so I have cautioned him as well and protected the page for two days in order to stop the edit war. You can also ask for a third opinion or seek advice at editor assistance; if you are unable to agree, you can also start a request for comment. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_M._Kornbluth
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Rosoft/archive9&oldid=504896763"