User talk:MikeWazowski/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, MikeWazowski/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- 9cds^(talk) 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Redshirt Filmette Series DELETION?

Mr. "MikeWazowski" welcome. As the author and producer of the Redshirt Filmette Series and well as the author of it's Wikipedia entry. I am responsible for it's content. I thought I wrote something of interest, since it's all true. You have come to my entry and added a 'subject to deletion' Wiki clause. I would be very interested in why you would do such a thing to my Redshirt entry? What are your valid reasons, cause you must have some? I would love to hear about your reason here or on the Redshirt Filmette Series TALK/discussion page. I'll be waiting in interest. Netwriter 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:AFD

Care to have another looks at the AFD for Stella Nova (which was incorrectly at "Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand")? Grutness...wha? 01:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

My stress level went up due to that AFD, heh. I'd rather not. He'd probably call me age into question when questioning my decision. Would it be okay to get some other admin to do it? I'd rather wash my hands of this matter. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:10 UTC (2006-03-08)

Jason Steele

I think Steele has enough notability to stay on Wikipedia. If you guys on Wikipedia were less of pricks and Nazis, Wikkpedia would be a better place of research. Now, because the Jason Steele article is being deleted, people must seek elswhere for information about Steele. This way, Wikipedia gets less hits, and it gets slightly less popular. There are a lot of good articles with notability that doesn't reach Wikipedia's standards, but something doesn't have to be notable for people to want information about it.

If you feel Steele is notable enough to stay, make a case for him. An AfD listing does not immediately equal deletion - it's a call for discussion. And for the record, insulting others (the Nazi comment) is immature and probably not going to win you any converts. MikeWazowski 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mucky Pup

Please both of you cool off. The edit history is too crazy to say who is at fault but it looks like you're both as bad as each other. Take a break from Wikipedia, have a nice cold shower, and come back and try and work together to improve an article on an interesting band! --kingboyk 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (admin)

I'd like to second the above idea. Mike, you were thrice reverted, true, and that's against guidelines; but you're as guilty of "pouring petrol on this fire" (check here) as JohnBWatt is. I suggest that you take a break from this article, and direct your efforts towards different articles for a few days. After that, you may have a different perspective on this dispute, which really is pretty much an edit war. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be watching both of you closely tonight Mike, any edit warring will result in immediate bans. Please try to work together on the talk page, and if you can't agree ask for a mediator to take a look. And no personal slurs against other users please! I'm confident you 2 can work together, now prove me right. OK? --kingboyk 23:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Traveller Film Series

What have you got against this article Mike? The international coverage the said films have received proves that they are notable and are a valid addition to Wikipedia. If fan films are accepted then I really don't understand why an independent series can't have a home here. You seem to be enjoying your job far too much. -- Hepburnsprings 13:07, 1 April 2006

---

Thanks for acknowledging my contribution to the Cult film article. Jonathan F 04:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Joe Hitchcock

I see you prod'ded him. I was going to get around to the rest of the Downending entries, but got called away. I stumbled on them while looking for people who had tried to claim a legit credit by listing themselves as a producer for The 1 Second Film, which led me to Marama Killen, which led me to the whole operation. Looks like a bunch of student filmmakers. Fan1967 17:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that the modification of (brackets are mine, for clarity here):

''The Battle for Endor'' was featured along with its predecessor, ''Caravan of Courage''.

to:

The film [''The Battle for Endor''] was released [...] with its sequel, ''The Ewok Adventure'' 
[''Caravan of Courage'']

was a mistake, easy to understand given the volume of changes you made in that revision. My edit:

The film was released on DVD with its predecessor as a double feature collection entitled 
''The Ewok Adventures'' on [[November 23]], [[2004]].  For this release, the original 
''The Ewok Adventure'' bears the earlier theatrical title of ''Caravan of Courage.''  
The release was a single double-sided disc, with one film on each side.

Dougluce 01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith nominations?

Do you have any proof that User:WCityMike is making bad faith AfD nominations, or are you just assuming bad faith? You really shouldn't make such accusations without proof. Erik the Rude 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek AFDs

FYI, I've removed your comment from Talk:Star Trek (Fan made productions) about voting in the AFDs. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with an unbiased statement that wasn't encouraging a particular view ... although there are probably others who would frown on it. At any rate, WCityMike has been putting trolling warnings at the top of all of the AFDs ... which is probably overkill. But anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to remove the comment as to try to calm things a bit. BigDT 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

FYI [1]. — Mike • 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Clase Z "Tropical"

I'm a little concerned by your comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clase Z "Tropical" page, "Very likely a vanity article, as article author has only made edits promoting this filmmaker". I don't believe that such comments are neccessary. There is no evidence that the editor is proceeding in this way, particuarily given that Miguel Coyula is an established Cuban filmmaker of some standing both at home and internationally. It would be more appropriate if you researched the topic somewhat before judging editors and potentially discouraging involvement. --Zleitzen 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird Request

Mike, I noticed you were on. Would you mind leaving me a message on my talk page, even if it's just nonsense like "Bleppity"? I need to test something really quick. Hope you don't mind the reuqest. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Obliged. I was altering my CSS code for new messages, and wanted to make sure it was operating acceptably. Much obliged. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're Right

On second thought, you're right. — Mike (talk • contribs) 05:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Personal Attacks"

I may have been angry, but I think calling a liar for making blatant lies is quite appropriate. I hope you will send that other guy a message telling him not to twist evidence to suit his claims. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and deception ruins its credibility. JimRaynor55 21:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you even READ things?

I find it deplorable that an admin would evade questions and refuse to provide evidence for his claims for two months. All while continuing to make reverts, and throwing around baseless accusations of agenda-driven behavior and bad faith edits against other users. JimRaynor55 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since you're apparently ignoring everything I say in the discussion page fore "Star Wars canon," I'm going to give yu this link here as well. Read it, you may learn something about real logic. JimRaynor55 05:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very funny how you claim that I'm ignoring everything you say when it's incredibly obvious that you're apparently doing the same thing - you've obviously ignored my reasons every time I've posted them. And I'd suggest reading that link you sent me as well - from that same page: ...it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. This is not a "middle ground" argument - no one is saying C is correct because of both A & B - this is simply stating that both A & B exist. You wish to exclude one of them absolutely - talk about sticking your fingers in your ears! MikeWazowski 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another statement that you've explained yourself, but as anyone can see from reading th "Star Wars canon" discussion page, you clearly have not. And congradulations, you pointed out that the moderate position isn't ALWAYS wrong! I really didn't know that! The middle ground fallacy is your belief that I would be reasonable to compromise, even though no evidence or reasoning says I should. JimRaynor55 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

MikeWazowski, read more carefully and learn the difference between asking an EXISTING Wiki user to join in an article, and trying to create puppet accounts. Your false accusations really make you look bad. JimRaynor55 07:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote I pointed out to you says that it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. This is what you did - I did not claim you were trying to urge people to create meatpuppet accounts - I pointed out that you have been observed trying to induce others not currently involved with the debate to join in on your side, which is exactly what you have done. Please take your own advice and read more carefully yourself. MikeWazowski 07:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiseguys vote removal

The second vote I removed was signed by the same user. I acted in good faith. If it wasn't by the same user, that was an understandable error on my part--Lawcomic 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I do not find your condescending, accusatory tones to be particularly helpful. I accept criticism well and will make corrections where appropriate. But your tone is certainly uncalled for.--Lawcomic 21:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and now we've moved on to the righteous indignation from those who got admonished for something they shouldn't have done. You certainly are accepting criticism well here, counsellor. MikeWazowski 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Exhibit B. --Lawcomic 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what are you doing??

You should know that I am more than aware of what constitutes a speedy deletion. The "Doodoocaca" article did not meet those criteria. - Lucky 6.9 04:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that now. What I wish to know is: Why was this nominated in the first place? I did more than sufficient research before posting the article, it was deemed worthy of consideration for another project dedicated to Flash animation and the presentation even had mention on a few notable lyrics sites. - Lucky 6.9 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...I got a bit hot. It seems that other users have questioned some of your previous nominations. It's no excuse, but I wasn't thinking clearly. I'm trying to set a good example by not defending what appears to be a mistake on my part for adding the article. In the meantime, it seems that I'm guilty of violating the "no personal attacks" rule at the same time. Please accept my apologies for doubting your integrity. - Lucky 6.9 04:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, where have these others questioned some of my previous nominations? I've tried to present reasoned opinions whenever I list something. There was a flap earlier this year with *someone else* who was engaged in multiple bad faith nominations, and I called him on it, which he didn't like. Most of his AfDs failed, and that user isn't around anymore, btw. MikeWazowski 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just going by some of what I saw above in the heat of the moment. You're absolutely right and I was absolutely not right and I see that now. Your reasoning is sound. AfD is a real dangerous place at times and I can't tell you how much flak I caught when I used to frequent it. - Lucky 6.9 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)