User talk:MikeWazowski/Archive 4

Your note at ANI

Hi, me again. Saw you note @ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Theplanetsaturn_and_ownership_issues); ragrdless of what they'll tell you there, I sent a 3RR warning to the user w/ respect to El Sobrante, California. In the interest of fairness, I would have to warn both of you w/ regards to Landry Walker, but I won't do that formally. Just stay away and you'll be fine. I'll keep an eye on both articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I've actually been trying to do legitimate copyedits on the Walker article, but have been getting caught up in his reversions. Thanks for taking a look... MikeWazowski (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I keep saying to you, I don't particularly have a problem with you deleting the arguably incidental aspect of the discussion, if you would stop deleting the non-incident aspects. Otherwise, I see that you are wiki-stalking me. Why?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What "non-incident aspects"? The elder-geek.com link and "contributing writer" claim? According to this search, he's only written one article solo for them - I don't find that all that notable or worthy of inclusion - perhaps you could explain why you blindly revert any changes, even when those reversions break valid links? MikeWazowski (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My search came up with three, plus the "incident" article which makes a total of four in one month. That seems notable enough for me, it certainly seems to make my "claim" a "fact". Perhaps you could explain why you are following me from wiki page to wiki page?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Count again - as I stated, this is the only solo article that search brings up. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I count just fine. Here's the facts. Contributions to three articles, excluding the "incident" one. Plus he is listed as a "contributing writer". that's a cut and dried as it can be. Stop challenging obvious facts. http://www.elder-geek.com/index.php?s=landryTheplanetsaturn (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The new edit works for me. Thanks for leaving in the non incident aspects.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

Hello, my name is StevenMario, and I wanted to say that I will stop doing these things that I used to do. I'm autistic, and some of you guys don't really know that. I'm trying to help Wikipedia, but there is one problem, sources. I cannot find a specific source for censorship cartoons nor can I find anything else. If you can help me, we can help out those pages before they face deletion. 68.217.90.83 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

HELP!

Hello. My new article, List of video games notable for universal acclaim, needs help. Can you find games that are considered the best? StevenMario (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 1up.com

Saw your ascertation regarding 1up.com being a possibly unreliable source. It doesn't appear you do a lot of editing regarding video games (seems you do mostly movies?), but the website for the magazine Electronic Games Monthly (no longer in publication, it's just the site now), 1up.com has always been considered a reliable source by the video games project. Unless you meant to infer because Blog was in the link that it was a self-published source, which it is not. It's run by the staff, and as stated in the guidelines "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Which is what that page would fall under. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

You edit conflicted me, doggone it. :) Just throwing in my two cents, I'd leave a follow-up message on his talk page. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

S'okay... the kid's courting another block, if you ask me... If you think it necessary, I'll warn him, but warning him has done very little good in the past... MikeWazowski (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Laurence Wright Editing

Mike, Didn't mean to create some sort of vandalism in making changes and additions. I'm a novice in these matters and assumed I addressed the request when I added references I believed to be verifiable. I deleted notices, only because I assumed I addressed the concerns for verifiability with my added references. Help me out if you can. I tried linking the Pyramid Media website entry for two of Laurence's films, and one was denied as verifiable. Also, I've been attempting to add other links that would add credibility. I'll keep at it. I could use some more suggestions. This is not a hoax article. The man has made significant contributions in an area of non-traditional film production. Most of his work is for projects that have become cult classics or for Disney theme park shows that are no longer playing and/or do not have distributed credits.

I have been aiming to address editorial concerns. I have even removed much of the article, with a goal of finding more verifiable resources to back up the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winonave (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Trijit

Hello MikeWazowski. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Trijit to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Vader

Not taking sides but your edit war at Darth Vader needs to stop. Ridernyc (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Hey, mind taking another look at Darth Vader? I looked at the page history and noticed you were involved a few days ago in an edit war there - looks like we've got a sockpuppet (or at least the guy editing without loggin in) of Wmmswxtmwenz01, edit-warring over the exact same thing, with the same exact phrasing. I'm not going to violate 3RR over this IP... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition

The Special Editions were also released theathrically. Therefore, to call the original versions "Theatrical cuts" is inaccurate. Xnacional (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Obnoxious

I've started an ANI thread about Xnacional. --EEMIV (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Clay animation

I invite you to discuss Talk:Clay animation the picture in the article clay animation--Max Sviridov (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You should note that this also came up at ANI, although you were never mentioned by name. You should perhaps also note that a company that makes clay animation stuff free licensing us an image is a GOOD THING, as there's no other way we could get free images for the commercial stuff. Would you treat Nick Parke the same way if he gave us a free Wallace and Gromit image? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference there is that Nick Park is clearly a notable person - I don't think this guy is, especially since he had to create his own article about himself and his films. He claims otherwise, but it's clearly self-promotion. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The company is sufficiently notable for an article - just use google, the studio's stuff is everywhere. Just because the studio doesn't work in English doesn't make it non-notable. And anyway, MOST wikipedia images are uploaded by their creator. It is NOT self promotion to upload an image you have created, it is encouraged by Wikipedia, nor does the creator of the image have to be notable. I have reverted you - at the moment, the talkpage consensus is to include it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For you work on Empire Strikes Back and bringing it too FA Status Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

logo on dreamworks animation

the logo that Carniolus uploaded is a better representation for dreamworks animation, it has nicer display clarity, and is better suited for accessibility purposes (no colored background, higher contrast against page background, svg, yadda) riffic (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pirates 4 Casting and information

Why are you putting that Bryson Carvalho as Kales Aswell, when there is NO source that it is true? And also, the information about the film that I have changed is the truth. Disney did plan on filming in the Spring, but they changed it to June(no explanation was given, it JUST happened). And I've read that it's more expensive to film in Hawaii and London, rather than the Caribbean, so all of the Budget cut news are ENTIRELY false. And if you don't believe me, LOOK IN THE SOURCES(because that's where I got my information from). And don't think just because I'm not a user here, that I'm a vandal, I am a user at Pirates Wiki, here's my userpage(so please, trust me on my information). 75.89.207.133 (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you undoing my edits?

I have recently been posting edits on several Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies and MGM Cartoons related articles, and after I do these edits, you undo them with no reasonable explainations. Can you please stop doing that?! 98.254.83.35 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

TAS

Dear Mike,

I sent a message to Admin Bearcat on this issue after I reverted the initial Star Trek edit which someone had reverted without any discussion here but he has not replied. But since you reverted my edit on TAS...but Did give an explanation, can I just ask why you feel that TAS is officially part of Star Trek's canon? The thing is the exclusion of TAS was in a contract or memorandum of understanding between Paramount and Roddenberry. So, its part of a legally binding contract. Paramount may have created space for TAS on startrek.com--which I think should have been done long ago--but you know they don't quite say TAS is part of Trek canon...because they can't do this in legal terms. I suspect its also partly a marketing ploy even though there were some good episodes in TAS.

Personally speaking, I'm with David Gerrold here: Roddenberry had full control over this show, and accepted a salary making TAS. But maybe Rodenberry just didn't like animated Star Trek as DC Fontana says? It could be as simple as that. But if TAS isn't officially part of Star Trek canon, should wikipedia's article reflect this? This is just a friendly inquiry, nothing more. In fact, if you think about it, ST DS9 had a lot of themes on religion and conflict among aliens (especially the Dominion-Federation war) but if Roddenberry was alive, he would have hated all this, since he saw a future where all aliens got along in friendship eventually. But no one questions that ST DS9 (one of Star Trek's greatest TV series) was part of Star Trek's canon...and personally I find Roddenberry's ideas here to be very unrealistic. How could there not be conflict and wars among different aliens? But what do you think on TAS? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this edit which you made is quite correct. Someone must have made a point earlier that TAS was canon but this wasn't true. TAS was just featured on the startrek web site by Paramount probably because Paramount wanted to make money selling its DVDs. So, I tried to correct the situation and I made a counterpoint using Mike Okuda's book and DC Fontana's interview. (she wrote many original TOS episodes like Journey to Babel or the Enterprise Incident). So, yes, I think you made the corect move here to take out the whole TAS controversy from the basic Star Trek wiki article. But if I had made the edit which you had done, other editors would have reverted me sadly. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Admixture white Hispanics

Admixture studies on the Hispanic population in the U.S conclude the most European in terms of ancestry are lower then 67% European, most Hispanics in the U.S are white it is self evident the average white Hispanic in the U.S is lower than 67% European, autosomal studies which measure the levels of ancestry a group or person has concluded the maximum of European ancestry in the Hispanic population in the U.S is lower than 67% European, it is self evident that as the maximum of European ancestry in the Hispanic population is lower then 67% European then most white Hispanics in the U.S are lower than 67% European.

Please explain to me how White Hispanics in the U.S can be more then 67% European when studies have concluded the maximum European ancestry in the Hispanic popualtion is lower then 67% European?--ChineseNygirl (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ChineseNygirl has violated 3RR and then did another revert moments after the warning. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 20:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, thank you very much for your help. (And thank you again, Erikeltic.) SamEV (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As soon as ChineseNYgirl's block expired, the drama continued at Hispanics and Latinos in the United States. If you would please take a look. I have already placed a 3RR warning on her talk page, but methinks it is not going to help. I will not violate 3RR over it. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 18:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer

12-27 2010 Dear Mike, Can you ((HELP))me please? I don't really understand how this happened, but apparently someone made a major change to the Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer page on 10-5-2010. They changed all the TRUE facts to UNTRUE facts, and they were able to do this without even citing any proof or reference. Is there any way that edit can be undone? I don't understand well enough how to change it back, and I am just making more of a mess in trying to get the real facts back on this page. I would be very grateful for any help you can give me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEEBIRDIE (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: I found that on 10-5-2010 someone went in and vandalized the page - changed the page to read that The Irish Rovers first recorded the song. THEN on December 21, someone else wet in and vandalized the page again by adding the part about Elmo re-recording the song so his ex-wife would not receive royalties. So I went to the August 29 version of the page, which was correct and true, and deleted al edits after that. I hope that is OK with you. Thank you so much and I am so sorry to bother you. Pam (----)

Hello Mike, I work for Dr. Elmo of "Elmo & Patsy" and they recorded "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" in 1979. The current Wikipedia statement that the Irish Rovers first recorded the song in 1982 is incorrect. What proof would you like from us? We would like to update a few other inconsistencies and updates for the song in Wikipedia, however, you are deleting our posts. How can we proceed amicably? If you would like to contact us, please do so at docelmo@msn.com or www.drelmo.com, (415) 897-7797 Thank you, Nancy Clary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.173.21 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, you have a clear conflict of interest, and you should not be adding promotional material to the article. Wikipedia is not a place for your employer's self-promotion. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How about proof of copyright? In view of this lawsuit over that copyright, can you show first registration?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

12-25-2010 Merry Christmas Mike, I am Pam who also works for Elmo. We just want this page to be accurate - we are not trying to add promotional material. The song was written in 1979, and the COMPOSITION was copyrighted that same year by Kris Publishing (Elmo and Patsy's parents and then publisher), and recorded that same year. I have pasted below both the copyright for the COMPOSITION as well as the recording, inicating when they were recorded. Also liscensed the composition to the Irish Rovers in 1982 so they could make their recording.

From the Irish Rover's Wikipedia page, I have copied and pasted the following:"The success of "Wasn't That A Party", which was performed in a country-rock style rather than the band's familiar folk style, led to the band rebranding itself as The Rovers and changing styles for the remainder of the 1980s, scoring follow-up hits with songs such as "Chattanoogie Shoe Shine Boy", "No More Bread and Butter," and the Christmas hit "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer."

From the Irish Rovers web site: http://irishroversmusic.com/page/ourstory/#contenttop "The Rovers enjoyed life to such an extent, that their notorious partying inspired their next hit in ‘81. They soared to the top of the pop and country charts with "Wasn't That A Party" which their friend, Tom Paxton wrote after he witnessed one of the band's famous post-show parties. Their holiday hit, "Grandma Got Run-Over By A Reindeer" followed in 1982, and their output was frenetic throughout the 80's. Several chart topping and award winning back-to-back albums included “The Rovers” (1980), “No More Bread And Butter” (1981) and “It Was A Night Like This” (1982)."

SOUND RECORDING REGISTRATION: Type of Work: Music Registration Number / Date:SR0000013548 / 1979-11-15 Title: Grandma got run over by a reindeer / Randy Brooks ;[performed by] Elmo 'n' Patsy. Imprint: Windsor, CA : Elmo & Patsy KP2984A, c1979. Publisher Number: Elmo & Patsy KP2984A Description: on side 1 of 1 sound disc : 45 rpm ; 7 in. Notes: (With Christmas) Copyright Claimant:© Kim-Pat Ent. Date of Creation: 1979 Date of Publication:1979-10-27 Authorship on Application:words and music: Randy Brooks. Names: Brooks, RandyElmo 'n' PatsyKim-Pat Ent. =The Library of CongressUnited States Copyright Office101 Independence Ave., S.E.Washington, D.C. 20559-6000202-707-3000

SONG COPYRIGHT: Type of Work: Music Registration Number / Date:PA0000054401 / 1979-12-27 Title: Grandma got run over by a reindeer / Randy Brooks. Imprint: c1979. Publisher Number: Elmo 'n' Patsy KP2984A Description: on side 1 of 1 sound disc : 45 rpm ; 7 in. Notes: (With Christmas).Words & music. Copyright Claimant:Kris Publishing Company Date of Creation: 1979 Date of Publication:1979-10-27 Names: Brooks, RandyKris Publishing Company The Library of CongressUnited States Copyright Office101 Independence Ave., S.E.Washington, D.C. 20559-6000202-707-3000

Here is another statement that is incorrect, and heresay by SOMEONE: Following the Shropshires' divorce, Elmo re-recorded it solo in 1992 and again in 2000, so as to deny Patsy any royalties on sales or broadcasts of the new versions, which have generally supplanted the originals by the duo.

No one knows WHY Elmo re-recorded this except Elmo, who definately did not add this to the Wikipedia page himself. It is untrue and should not be here. The fact is that Sony never did anything to promote the Elmo and Patsy CD, and Elmo needed to re-record the Grandma song to be released on another CD so he could continue his music career. This type of statemnet is defamitory, untrue, unproveable, undocumented, and in the meanest of spirit. I am sure this is not what Wikipedia is meant to do. Subjective statements like this can only undermine the credibility of this page. You asked us for proof of copyright - so I would think that unless you had proof of this statement, it should not be here.

How is the blatantly obvious & self-evident ever a personal opinion or original research?

Just wondering. I think what I wrote about 1775 not really being a blackadder version was pretty basic information and clear to anyone who watched 5 minutes of the show (which you obviously didn't). Spiny Norman (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

List of the movies considered the worst

I've post in the talk page the reason why I've deleted the movies. --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This particular article has been subject to personal opinion before, which is why some definitive criteria needed to be established. While every editor is entitled to their opinion, the place for expressing that is on the talk page of the article. Just because someone asked for my opinion on my personal talk page, does not make it OK for you to have an argument there. Edit summaries are also a poor place to make personal attacks. Please try to be civil in your discussions, and come to a consensus on the talk page, before entering into an edit war. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

TSE

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spoony Experiment. As this was about the episodes as well an KEPT by an ADMIN, I've reverted you again. Please read WP:BRD and discuss your redirecting of the article on the talkpage. Jarkeld (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the discussion for the main article - the discussion for this page is actually Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Spoony_Experiment_episodes, which was closed early and improperly by a non-admin - something that led to a VERY long discussion questioning his actions, which you can read here. Now, I;m not going to edit war over this now, but I intend to bring this to another AfD soon, as I believe both articles were kept by improper methods, specifically revolving around the claims that the show is notable due to an award, which it never actually received. There are no other indications from reliable sources that this show is in any way actually notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The main article discussion covered both the article and the list. Regardless of that, I am trying to resolve the problem by having the article moved to Noah Antwiler (currently a redirect, which is why an Admin needs to do it and that means waiting on the move backlog). That way the link between award and article is as clear as possible, WP:WEB is fulfilled and (hopefully) this can all be settled. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)