User talk:MikeWazowski/Archive 3

Thanks

I know you just gave me a warning, but thanks for being fair about it and warning the other guy too. It's nice to see that once in a while and I appreciate it. Erikeltic (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, could you provide the diffs as to where I violated 3RR? I just checked (its a rare day indeed when I go over 3 edits, and I haven't in over a year). Could you provide those diffs? If you find yourself mistaken, I would appreciate you reverting back your warning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley anon vendetta

He's been reported, as indicated by the link in the section immediately before you posted, I think. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sci Fi Weekly

The info about Sci Fi Weekly in the Sci Fi Channel entry is completely wrong. Suggest it either be omitted or corrected. It was never a print publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlectroid (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars sequel trilogy

Hello, MikeWazowski. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Dalejenkins | 21:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Liopleurodon

Yeah, I am going to seek intervention from an administrator. ArthurWeasley (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edit at List of motion picture production companies

Could you please explain your action here? → http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_motion_picture_production_companies&diff=288876231&oldid=288860507 . Also, did you clean up after your action by deleting the redirect that I described in the comment appended to the line item addition? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's very simple - it was a non-notable film company that couldn't sustain its own article, so it had no place on that page. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Liopleurodon

Hi, Mike,

As I've said on the liopleurodon talkpage, I'm leaving WP. Before I do, I'd like to give some feedback. Your comments and edit summaries gave off an antagonistic tone towards me for quite a lot of the discussion. Being antagonistic is unhelpful to WP for a number of reasons, most of which are outlined at WP:CIVIL. I assume you didn't mean to be antogonistic - if this is the case, please be more careful with what you say to editors in the future.

Darimoma (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe stop hounding my edits

'Coz that won't end well for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But, if you have the burning need to contravert my edits, its going to be in your best interest to take the time to discuss them in article talk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"'Coz that won't end well for you." - so what, are you threatening me? Nice... MikeWazowski (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am explaining to you that following my edits around and reverting them simply because they are mine is called wiki-hounding, and folk at AN/I tend to take a rather dim view of that practice. And you might want to read up on WP:CIVIL yourself; you aren't being very polite or courteous. If I choose to point out that you are behaving poorly, that isn't being uncivil. I am offering you the opportunity to use the discussion page as intended, instead of thinking that simply reverting in synthesized information is going to somehow magically change the nature of the edits, or my reaction to them.

I appreciate that you think you are pointing to the obvious, but what is obvious to you isn't the same thing as citation. That bears repeating, Mike: your interpretations or evaluations are not citable in Wikipedia articles. I've made this point in article discussion, but I think things are heating up to the point that you are missing the core of the arguments, instead turning the discussion into a pissing match. I think you are wrong to do so, and its not going to have the desired result for you. I want to work with you, but refusing to discuss and being - for lack of a better word, a jerk - isn't going to solve anything. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think people are wiki-hounding you, I can't help you understand your delusion. Because that's what it is. As to the point at hand, if by "not being polite" you mean rolling over at taking whatever you say at face value, and always letting you have your way (which is what appears to be the way you wish things would go), then fine - but that's NOT how this has played out, and you know it. Please keep your insults and name-calling to yourself, and stop projecting your own problems on other editors. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You Recent "Lawrence" Edit

Hi MikeW. -

I'm just curious about why you regarded the posted link to a restoration article on Lawrence of Arabia as WP:LINKSPAM. I looked in on the article and it appeared like a legitimate discussion by one of the restorers. It's not at all critical to the success of the article, but if you've got a moment some time I'd be interested in hearing your thinking on it. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply and explanation on Morgands - I thought it might be something like that. regards.Sensei48 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

About editin the page for king kong film

I was still editing the page for King Kong, when I was just going to add the citation, you deleted my changes. In the next several edits, and there are some Chinese citations, sorry, no relative English citations since it is region three release, not region one. You can verify the sources using google translate, but just do not delete and say this is unsourced just because it is hard to read. Of course there would be no problem if you know Chinese.--203.83.115.131 (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to remove the reference and text again, but someone else beat me to it - you should really read up on the guidelines for reliable sources - posts on a message board won't cut it, nor will some of your language, such as the use of the word "fraud" - that reeks of personal opinion, not objective coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason Steed

Re: Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles , as you did with Fledgling Jason Steed. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove just the AFD notice, I removed the whole article and returned the page to a redirect. (Which I thought was what you lot wanted). I am happy for you to speedy close AFD if you want. Now that the publishing deal has been announced by Publishers MarketPlace it is likely that the book will be mentioned in more 'Wikipedia reliable' publications over the next few days/weeks. Then, perhaps, I can recreate the article without causing any problems.--Beehold (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Padmé (film) edits and flagging

Hello, I'm confused and concerned by your repeated citations that the images I have added to ths entry comprise "excessive self-promotion" and a "conflict of interest." Before my last round of changes, I read up on both areas and took measures to neutralize the point of view by removing the personal names of the people appearing in the photos and limiting the captions to refer only to the characters as they appear in the film. Yet I return to see that you have removed all of the photos again (captions and images in their entirety) and have gone on to flag the article. I would appreciate it if you would explain to me what the ongoing issue is. If it is the captions, they were already addressed. If it is the use of the pictures themselves (images from the on set and the film itself), then my confusion remains, because the "Improving this article" window on the talk page appears to actively encourage the addition of images. ("This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster.") I am close with the subject of the article, but fail to see how the images constitute COI. They relate directly to the subject of the article, don't link to anything other than the images themselves, don't mention or link to any person, and offer no editorial comment or slant on the film. They also do nothing to promote me personally. I don't appear in any of them and am not mentioned in any of them. I'm posting this because in flagging the article, it seems you are trying to escalate the situation into some kind of confrontation.Spazweez (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)spazweez

"I am close with the subject of the article, but fail to see how the images constitute COI." - The images aren't the COI, it's your closeness to the subject. According to the image desriptions, you're either the director or producer of the film - you shouldn't be editing the article, except for minor or factual corrections. Overloading the article with unnecessary images sets off all kinds of warning flags. Also, I only finally flagged the article since both you and Westcoastbrainaic appeared to only be blindly reverting, and never addressing the subject I mentioned in my edit summaries. The article already has an image - the poster. For a subject this small, that's enough - it's certainly the standard, as shown in nearly all the other articles on short films. Also, this comment of yours ("offer no editorial comment or slant on the film") is exactly why the images are unnecessary - they're just decoration. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't entirely understand how the images as decoration makes them unnecessary, as it seems that same complaint could be applied to many other pop culture related articles on wikipedia. However, the point about number of images related to the size of the article and particular subject is taken, so I have refrained from re-introducing them and concentrated instead on trying to clean up the article per the other standards put forward by the film project wiki group. I am one of the producers of the project, but have only introduced facts into the article and I believe that the film itself, as the winner of an annual competition that is closely connected to a major cultural touchstone, is as valid an article subject any of the other fan films which have an individual Wikipedia entry (cf. "Star Wars fan films"). That being said, I am going to refrain from further editing of the article except to fix any factual errors, since I seem to have stepped into a hot button topic. Thanks for your explanation. Spazweez (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)spazweez

Mike, I don't understand why there is a Conflict of Interest warning on the Padme (flim) page. All sources are cited, information is backed up by io9, Atom.com, and Lucasfilm. There are no weasel words and no editorial slant. What, in your mind, is the conflict of interest? That someone involved in the fan film worked on the article? I can guarantee you that other makers of fan films (for this very contest) have done the same thing, but no warnings appear on their film pages.

All the Wikipedia COI guidelines contain phrases like "use extreme caution." Extreme caution seems to have been used in this case. I can detect no editorial slant to the article; it is simply facts, backed by citations. Could you list the specific issues that you have with the article so that they can be addressed and the warning banner can be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoastbrainiac (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I wasn't entirely sure on whose side of the discussion you were at the time. Jerkov (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem - certain editors have a problem being called on their actions, as you saw. Or not, now that he's decided that even *discussing* his actions (all true accounts, btw) are "personal attacks". Whatever. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, reading bits of his discussion log has confirmed what I already thought from the T2 and T-1000 discussions. He tends to claim ownership over some articles it seems, and uses his vast knowledge of Wikipedia's policies (not to mention clever, thorough rhetoric) to hide this and confuse dissenters into submission. He's also an expert at picking apart fallacious arguments from other contributors and using these to make them seem unreasonable- a very clever and subtle victim act put to perfection. If he reads this he'll probably try to do exactly that. We're dealing with a very clever guy here. He also has a habit of inventing his own policies, for instance his claim that when a film is set only a few years from the present it's "indistinguishable from the present" so it doesn't warrant mentioning. Or his insistence that something must be of "intrinsic importance to the understanding of a subject". That isn't a Wikipedia policy or rule, it's something he made up and is going to defend to death with the tactics outlined above. Jerkov (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing my comments here after the fit thrown here. I suppose that's what you call irony, but I'd rather just keep the peace. Erikeltic (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you buckled under the pressure of the blowhard, Erikeltic. You do know that he'll still never treat any of us with good faith anyway, don't you? I think he's utterly incapable of seeing that much of the drama he's involved with again and again is of his own doing, as well as being incapable of admitting wrongdoing. He's so caught up in either being right, or more importantly, "winning" at any cost, that he can't see the damage he's doing to his reputation. In his eyes, it must be someone else's fault - and that's sad. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not worth it. Like I wrote, there is just no point in arguing over stuff like that. It's irrelevant, non-productive, and highly frustrating. In the end, it gets you almost nothing. Besides, I suspect that at the current rate of wave-making, within 18 months there will either a complete topic ban on sci-fi or we will see a sudden and sharp decrease in the number of people willing to suffer the consequences of making genuine and good faith contributions to sci-fi articles at Wikipedia. Either way, the little guys are always going to have a tough time of it, so there's no point in contributing to the problem by pissing into the wind. Erikeltic (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you left in the links to his rants, so that his abusive behavior is still linked. I love how he dubs himself so superior and throws around his higher edit count - especially when I've actually been on this thing longer than he has... I wonder how many of those edits were his continual haranguing of the teeming unwashed masses on the issues surrounding the whole Cawley/Kirk thing, or robot names issues on Galactica... MikeWazowski (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That actually made me laugh. Erikeltic (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You do know that he'll still never treat any of us with good faith anyway, don't you? I guess you were right. Take a look at this ANI Complaint. Rather than fix it or ask me to fix it, he filed an ANI complaint against me for a tongue-in-cheek edit. I'm actually bummed out by the whole thing.... Erikeltic (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Steed

Please stop wiki-stalking me. The refs were accepted by the people at Wikipedia DYK (Did You Know) when it was used on the front page of Wikipedia recently and I trust their judgement. The author has helped pay for the memorial with proceeds from his book, and, as well as ensuring that the name of Raymond Steed lives on in the modern world through his book, he continues to support the project financially. I will be putting the refs back.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Wiki-stalking? This has nothing to do with *you*, so please don't try to change the argument. I haven't seen *any* reliable references for this book, this author, or his financial support. You have a serious problem with reliable sources, so if you simply blindly revert to re-insert this with the same poor references, it will be removed. I don't care what DYK posted - they apparently didn't look closely enough. That's ont notability, nor is it the final arbiter of what's acceptable on Wikipedia. You're going to need to come up with a MUCH better reason and/or references. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You have a serious problem with reliable sources"...now that's a bit WP uncivil isn't it? How many Good Articles, DYKs and Featured Articles have you got to your name?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly uncivil, when you just had an article deleted for a major lack of reliable sources. It's a simple fact - backed up by the poor references you're using in what appears to be an effort to ram any mention of the book into articles. Don't make this personal, or who's better than the other. That's not the issue. Also, FYI, you're going into 3RR territory if you revert this in again. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not my article mate. (But the answer is already on your talk page)-- Myosotis Scorpioides 14:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I don't have access to the original page history, and you've created the redirect twice now, according to your comments at AfD (which led me to the article, so that blows your wiki-stalking charge), forgive me for assuming you have an interest in connecting the two. However, my original point remains - the references for adding that author are not up to WP:RS standards. Find better sources, and we'll talk. Otherwise, it needs to stay out. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent):If you wish to continue making digs at me, may I suggest your talk page as the suitable place. Personal comments have no place on an article talk page. I quote: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek fan productions deletion Q

Hi,

I'm the guy who added 2 new Star Trek fan-made productions on June 11, 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions You have deleted my entire addition [simply reverted back to previous version], with this explanation: "(removed unreleased production)" I have read a little thru Wikipaedia [probably not enough], but I couldn't find something about not posting before, pre-, in, or post- production (not yet released) fan-made works. Out of the 2 works I posted about, only 1 is currently in production [the script is finished and they are working on the filming of the 1st episode since 2008, with release announced for Fall 2009]: "Star Trek: Phoenix": http://www.stphoenix.com/ but the other one: "Star Trek: Phoenix-X" is on-going for about 2-3 years, and their entire database is available online at their web site: http://www.startrekphoenixx.com/ Please see my edit in the page History for details on both these works (yellow text): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_fan_productions&diff=295715381&oldid=295707700 I wasn't a registered Wiki member at that time, that's why my IP is showing.

Please explain the reason(s) behind your deletion of my entire addition, and eventually explain which part(s) I can re-post safely. Thanks for your time.

P.S.: 1. I have opened a Wiki membership just to write you this message. 2. I am not in any way related to, nor had previous knowledge of these ST fan-made works.

Respectfully, MDGx —Preceding unsigned comment added by MDGx (talk • contribs) 02:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You should read up on the reliable sources guidelines - everything you wrote was based on primary sources, with no citations or references from independent reliable third-party sources. Since the project has not been released and has no verifiable coverage, that is wt your edits were removed. And without better sourcing, it will be removed again. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:

You have posted "(removed unreleased production)" as reason for deletion, but now you're telling me that such posts need accreditation/acknowledgement by reputed/known 3rd party/independent sources, according to Wikipedia rules, which I have read and understood [thanks for pointing me in the right direction ;)].

In the future, would you be so kind and specify the actual reason(s) for deleting an edit, please.

Also, please verify at your convenience the sources I've found for the afore mentioned fan-made works, and please let me know if it is acceptable to post them (which ones) again, safely:

1) "Star Trek: Phoenix", also known on the internet as ST:P, has been featured at:

- Kitsap Sun:

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/may/03/star-trek-gig-harbor-life-actor-seattle/

- Norwescon 32 April 9-12, 2009:

http://www.norwescon.org/

Norwescon 32 programming schedule for Friday April 10, 2009:

http://www.norwescon.org/archives/norwescon32/friday_programming.htm

ST:P table at Norwescon 32:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/djwudi/3429453818/

Norwescon review of ST:P screening:

http://community.livejournal.com/nwsfs/141063.html

- Sci-Fi Pulse:

http://scifipulse.net/?p=8308

- Associated Content [link blocked by Wiki black list bot] posted an "Interview with Leo Roberts: Casting Agent & Executive Producer of Web Series Star Trek: Phoenix".

- Behind The Camera Blog:

http://imtheonebehindthecamera.blogspot.com/

- Women in Film - Seattle:

http://www.womeninfilm-seattle.org/

- King5 video:

http://www.king5.com/video/eveningmagazine-index.html?nvid=358679

- Seattle Office of Film + Music:

http://seattlefilmandmusic.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/star-trek-phoenix-begins-production-in-seattle/

More here:

http://www.seattle.gov/filmandmusic/news/newsletter5062009.htm

- Sleep Deep Zombie:

http://sleepdepzombie.com/?p=29

2) "Star Trek: Phoenix-X" is featured at:

- Star Trek Wormhole:

http://www.startrek-wormhole.com/category/52

- Trek Fiction:

http://www.trekfiction.com/directory/series-PHX_1.html

- Star Trek Expanded Universe Wikia:

http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Phoenix-X

3) And I found another fan-made ST production, which is completed [4 seasons of online episodes] and now discontinued, called "Star Trek: Beyond", also known as ST:B:

http://stonewaterproductions.googlepages.com/startrekbeyond

"Star Trek: Beyond" has been featured at:

- Star Trek Fan Film News:

http://startrekfanfilmnews.blogspot.com/2008/06/beyond-releases-measure-of-peace-part-1.html

- Trek United: ST:B was nominated for Film Directors Guild [FDG] of Connecticut awards in 2008:

http://www.trekunited.com/community/index.php?showtopic=16897&pid=632665

I do appreciate your time and concern.

Respectfully,

MDGx —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC).

When I posted that I removed an unreleased production, generally WP:RS is enough - such productions rarely have independent third party coverage. Your implications that I gave you different reasons and explanations is untrue - you might also want to read WP:NOTCRYSTAL, which refers to future projects, such as unreleased films. Now, as to your sources: The Norwescon links ([1][2]), Flickr, LiveJournal, Blogspot, Deep Sleep Zombie, Star Trek Wormhole, TrekFiction, and the Star Trek Expanded Universe Wikia, as well as the Associated Content reference you mention, all fail the reliable sources guidelines, as they're either blogs, wikis, fansites, or other user-generated content. The links provided for Star Trek: Beyond have similar issues.

The Kitsap Sun and KING5 links are the closest you have to something reliable - the two Seattle links are just blog links to the KING5 video, so those don't work as valid references. Frankly, the two local media references seem to be more about the actors, and not the fan series - which I'll point out again, has still yet to be released, so notability is still an issue for me. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising - people are constantly inserting projects onto that page - please don't think anyone is singling you out. But you have to see that - especially with what was provided in the past, as well as with your contributions, why things have been removed. I would hold off until the series has been released, and hopefully garnered some actual press, say, like Star Trek: New Voyages/Phase II or Star Trek: Of Gods and Men, or at least gotten some more significant coverage, before trying again. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Then please explain, why a user createt content can't be as relevant as a professional generatet content? And at least you could have left the now not even mentioned fan productions on the discusion page, so that other members of Wikipedia can do a search on the specific production, and that they can be added to thhe main page later. Oh and please be paitiant with my english, i'm not a narrow speaker. --87.184.26.167 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC) --HansenSimon (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Linkspam query

The following was emailed to me by MCW07:

"You can stop editing away all of my Wikipedia links. A link to an outside review of a movie is not spam, no more than a link posted by a site called "Bloody Disgusting". I know you feel the need for personal vendetta, but I ask you to please stop targeting me and my website, as well as all of my Wikipedia edits. It is very obvious when you hunt down the 4-5 articles I have put legitimate work into and then delete my work without a thought behind it. I'm sure if you had a website related to any article on the site, you'd be slapping your link everywhere you possibly could. It just so happens that my links provide extra information NOT listed in the article, and you just erased that away without first emailing me to discuss the matter."

Now then, my response. This user, according to his userpage, runs a blog called Uncovered Films - nearly all of his recent contributions have been to insert links to his blog into articles, in clear violation of the conflict of interest guidelines - specifically those about self-promotion. I and other editors removed those links, and rightly so. I was under no obligation to email this user and ask his permission before doing so - that's not the way things work around here. Unless this editor can show valid reasons why we should ignore the conflict of interest rules and let him promote his site just because he wants to "slap a link everywhere he possibly can", I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I think I'll be removing those links should they re-appear. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

These links should help you keep track:

uncoveredfilms.blogspot.com (*|search current)

swagbucks.com (*|search current)

I deleted the last two that were still in article space. I notice you took out one of the links on his user & talk pages. Personally, I would have left it and then put it his userpages up for deletion at WP:MFD. This editor has been with WP since 2007 and should know better by now. He is a WP:COI editor. Another option is filing your concerns at ANI. My 2 cents fwiw,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion on WP:MFD, Berean Hunter. It's now listed for deletion here. 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why...

...are the film-release dates in Han Solo "unnecessary"? The FA Padmé_Amidala includes them, and it seems to make sense to provide a real-world anchor for these movies' releases -- at a minimum, when the character actually appears for the first time. --EEMIV (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The film articles themselves already have that information, so it seems rather extraneous to have it repeated in all the character articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Syfy

Thank you for your timely intervention on the Syfy and for providing a better copy of the actual logo in PNG format. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comic Con

I have created a column for non-featured, notable guest/attendees. I hope this assist, and we can aviod an edit war. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that will just lead to the same problem I tried to correct, with random users adding random names to the column with no citations. It's going to cause more problems, so I'm going to remove that column. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a reply in the article's talk section. Please do not attempt to control the article, and allow other good faith editors to add to it. I can understand where you are coming from, but see my reply in the article's talk section for my request. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sophia Stewart

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sophia Stewart. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Stewart. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Channel 101 Wiki Chad Vader page

I'll admit it doesn't offer any more info then the the Wikipedia page (yet) but why remove it from the page?----occono (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't de-link real people's articles! There's nothing promotional about that. Also, 101 is non-profit (For-loss, really....) so I don't think "promotion" is a fair term to use. Yonda and Sloan have done more for 101 then just Chad Vader, so I think they would embrace having the link to the 101 site...The Wiki is duplicate info admittedly, but it's a work in progress. I'll leave it out.----occono (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you yourself should take a look at the external links policy, specifically links to be avoided - specifically points #4, #13, and to some extent, #19. Channel 101 is a very minor part of the background for both individuals and the film series, and the links do not belong. Please do not add them again. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How does it cover #4? They have done quite a bit of filmography for Channel 101. Its website hosts all that stuff. (More then what's listed actually, as a lot of special one-off shorts have no credits done for them.) How is it minor? They link to 101 on the Blame Society site, because they've done lots for it, beyond Chad Vader. #12 covers the Wiki link, fair enough. #13 suggests Deep linking to specific pages on a subject, which is what the links to their filmography was. Why is their 101 Filmography "minor"? You haven't explained why. They don't have that a long list of filmography beyond it.----occono (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yonda & Sloan's own official bio page makes a passing reference to Channel 101 in only one sentence. Since nearly all of your recent contributions seem to be promoting Channel 101, I find it surprising that you can't see why I brought up point #4. As to point #13, Channel 101 is definitely a minor part of their careers, as well as the history of Chad Vader. Their work away from the site (actual Star Wars games, collaborations with Rifftrax, the continuation of Chad Vader on their own) has far eclipsed their earlier work, both in notoriety and press coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Channel 101-related articles is just my current Wikipedia to-do. I'm a fan and I'm trying to improve articles related to it, I wasn't aware you're not supposed to do too much work on one subject at a time. I don't think it's POV to be focused on a topic at one time. I think that all the stuff on their Blame Society bio page should be linked to. Their IMDb pages seem incomplete I guess, as they don't seem to have all that stuff. The passing sentence on Channel 101 seems to be not be much shorter then all their other credits, and there is also a photo on the bottom of the page of them at the Channys.

Some of the Nick Gibbons page I wrote based on just looking at his IMDb page. Should I re-add the stuff that I got from that? The info I got from Facebook was his current place of residence and the doug dank project bit.----occono (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You really need to read the reliable sources guidelines. It will answer your questions - but the short answer is "no".MikeWazowski (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should suggest Nick's page be deleted then, because none of it's sourced beyond IMDb or stuff people just said. I checked with him and it's accurate, but if it needs to be sourced better then it's probably worth deleting.----occono (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009 Star Trek Fan Fiction Edit

I fail to see how adding a simple summing up of a Production and then using the link the the productions home page as a Reference is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.69.255 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

SyFy awards

Please read WP:BRD. Note that "notability" is not a criterion for article content. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm game to discuss this here or at another venue of your choosing. Content noticeboard or Wikiproject Television might be good venues for additional opinions. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Check your talk page - I have some serious reservations about the validity of not only the awards, but also the notaility/reliability of the original Syfy Portal site in particular. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Accused of vandalism?

Mike, how was I vandalising the Ossining page by attempting to edit and make it more encyclopedic? I am an Ossining resident and I don't want our page to be embarrassing. Wnyxmcneal (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tigerspring

Hello MikeWazowski, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Tigerspring - a page you tagged - because: There's at least one band they have managed that have an article, which implies notability sufficient for A7. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  20:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

;)

nice username :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank yew... :) MikeWazowski (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You made a good point about my adminship @ Navajo wikipedia. I added a note to make my status clearer. Have a look again -- does that make sense now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep - very clear now... MikeWazowski (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI/SPI

Hi , I don't know if you're following it at all, but your friend StevenMario has been reported after your ANI thread and is currently here. Just thought I'd let you know! Good work. HJMitchell You rang? 13:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)