This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you! Actually, "Walton"'s not my surname and it doesn't refer to Walton-on-the-Naze or Walton in Liverpool, though you were close. It's a location somewhere in the south-east of England. Sorry I can't be more specific on-wiki, as anyone could be reading this; I'll email you and tell you the rationale if y. ou're interested. Walton Assistance! 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Walton
Assistance! has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Sean Parker-Perry, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{ prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Mike33, I'm sorry to say that I think you're wrong. I have spent some more time on this since our previous conversation, and all of the sources I have been able to find, including independent and authoritative sources like Britannica ( here and without subscription here) and the Royal Family's own website ( here and here), indicate that the 1917 change in the royal house name to Windsor was a unilateral action of King George V, with no involvement from Parliament. The term "order-in-council", to which you seem to object strenuously, may or may not be correct, but the sources I cite rather use the term "royal proclamation".
I will be restoring most of the text that you wantonly deleted from this article on 2 June 2007, at least as far as is justified by the references I have cited. If you continue to disagree, I hope that we can work it out amicably. -- Tisco 01:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Mike, I was planning on reviewing you tonight on editor review, however, I am really tired and must be getting to bed, however, I will review you Wednesday afternoon/night. Sorry for the delay! -- w p k t sfs 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your edit to Frosted Flakes because the added text seemed to be word-for-word a copy of a deleted article. If you want to add a reference to this, please use your own words. -- Tony Sidaway 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mike33! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Your oppositions to the merger of the Controversy in parapsychology into Parapsychology seem to stem from the fact that you believe merging it would necessarily cut down useful information from it. However take another look at the Controversy in parapsychology article, most of the information in it is redundant or unsourced, it's written badly and could easily be condensed to 3-4 paragraphs without sacrificing any actual content. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, good enough reasoning. I didn't like the look of the allcaps and out-of-policy message there but entire removal in this situation seems OK due to WP:OR. GDonato ( talk) 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I get your point, but this is really the only official descriptive information available on the book, and the format and citation make it clear it's a quote. The was written to provide basic info about the forthcoming book and so "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." I feel like rewriting it kind of waters it down, especially since it is basically a temporary additon. TAnthony 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Were you able to access the info linked to by David.Monniaux? I don't have an account there and wasn't able to log in. If you do/could, could you give me the skinny? -- SandChigger 22:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
THANK YOU! I get a BARNSTAR? IN MY FIRST WEEK? WOW! Thank you! This might sound weird but I almost started to cry! Thank you SO much! If ya need anything ask me OK? Thanks and cheers! MAJ5 (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you comment at my editor review please? Thanks and Cheers! MAJ5 (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but your adopter has been a proven sockpuppet of a banned user User:Bugman94. Miranda 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there! Thanks for your input on the Manchester talk page, (I would say support but I don't think the issue in hand is about "sides" as such). I think you make very valid and helpful points, both on that page and elsewhere.
Anyway, what I was wondering about was if you'd be at all interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester?? I think it would benefit greatly from someone like yourself, and you seem to have the right approach and temprament to Wikipedia (which is probably something I don't!!).
It's not a terribly active project (it's in its infancy), but these groups usually act as good places to raise concerns and get feedback, as well as testing new ideas and allowing related articles to flourish. Hope you give it a thought, if not now, then in the future.
Feel free to contact me with any queries. Thanks again, Jza84 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mike,
Thank you for informing me about the "deletion review".
As far as I am aware, the wikpedia is one of any number of non-profit websites that posts articles/bios these days.
Since very many quality websites and blogs already host my images and biography, as a successful contemporary artist whose work has been very well received by art critics and patrons alike and sells on a regular basis, and as an educator who takes great pride in imparting my knowledge and experience to my students (I hold dual bachelors degrees in Fine Arts/Painting from the University of Madras, India, 1979 and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A-the latter with Honors in 1993, and a M.B.A from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1997. I developed a passion for art since early childhood and have been a successful art contest entrant since age ten), I naturally have no burning desire to add one more site to the already long list of web portals displaying my series of paintings. It was only because of those that happened to notice the block on my name during a keyword search, that I cited a few points of "notability and verifiability" regarding my work thus far.
Having said the above, I have absolutely no further desire, the time nor the inclination to pursue this any longer.
In closing, I sincerely wish to thank all the administrators who have made contributions on this issue.
Dear Mike33,
Thank you for the immediate response. As per your suggestion on my talk Page, I am submitting the following at your page.
Please consult details regarding Notability Verifiability already listed in my User Talk Page. My apologies for the incorrect usage by random users. I have no intention to contest your deletion policies. However, because of recent happenings at wikipedia I am compelled to jump in. Please refer to the following selected links that indicate notability/verifiability regarding my art career and which have Summary pages in Wikipedia.
For the last few days I have been trying to follow instructions by different wikipedia administrators, I am having a very hard time following any of the wikipedia codes, as well as using your Talk Pages. I need administator help and cooperation, in lieu of being directed to other wikipedia pages.
Thanks,
Beginning with the most recent:
2007
Recent publications that have featured a cover story on my art include:
Once again, I would appreciate closure on this issue asap.
UserChitra 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the mis-placed vandalism accusation. Douglasmtaylor 02:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike - Just a technical note - you have failed to sign your name under the nomination statement. It's a small thing really but you should sign to accdept, even on a self-nom. Best wishes. Pedro | Chat 08:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike. To withdraw simply make a comment at the top of the discussion that you wish to withdraw at this time and someone will archive the RFA for you. Pedro | Chat 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Good luck next time, Mike. If you want any further advice, I'm always happy to respond to comments on my talk page. See you around :) ck lostsword• T• C 13:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there are problems with RfA. I wouldn't have advised you to self-nominate with only 400 edits, but I think you make a valid point about vanity, and you shouldn't be opposed for being honest. Btw don't forget it's RfA, not AfD (you keep calling it AfD by mistake). And which "start new topic" link were you talking about? Walton One 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The second city anon has continued his campaign of editting, as well as set up some accounts and done some other distruptive things. I've raised my concerns here at the administrator's noticeboard, as I feel this is getting beyond a joke. Jza84 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
via User talk. - WarthogDemon 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Mike
Thanks for keeping me up-to-date with what was happening with this - good of you. pablo :: ... hablo ... 15:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, I think it is you who is failing to assume good faith here. I signed "cheers" simply because I felt like it, not for any specific reason, and I see no reason why you think I would mean it in any other than a light-hearted salutation. If I had meant it sarcastically, I would have made it rather more obvious. I'd also like to remind you of WP:NPA; I have no idea why you consider the commonplace word "cheers" a "wankerism", whatever that might mean... Cheers, DWaterson 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed it as I worked out what I did wrong. Thanks anyway. Davnel03 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading the comments on this user page and I would just like to say I think you should leave it where it is now. This is by no means a warning, rather a friendly suggestion to stop, otherwise it might stain your reputation and scupper any chances of becoming a beauracrat or administrator, etc. Thanks. :) R_Orange 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Imagine me posting 10 points of Wikipedia order which have nothing to do with anything? Would you be happy? I wasn't happy and I gave him a big red hand, I am getting tired of all of these socks. I want to make Wikipedia good and am quite prepared to bend to do that. If other people have other agendas fine. There is nothing in my conduct which would contribute a warning from you, and unless you were specifically asked to reprimand me, or stumbled accross my comments, then I would consider carefully what you are doing. Your contribution logs show that we have never edited similar/same articles. In this instance I accept your reprimand in good faith. In future please give me examples of my wrong doing. Mik e33 - t@lk 20:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) Lentower 03:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike. You might disagree with the conclusions, but you can't deny the fact that it is the only verifiable Government source that defines the exact limits of the cities. Yes, the definition of Manchester includes localities in their own right, but this is no different to London including a number of localities, New York including places like the Bronx, Queens, etc. The fact is that modern cities are made up of multiple localities centred around a large core. This is much the same as Manchester and the statistics I provided from the Department for Communities and Local Government back this up. EarlyBird 22:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As a recent, and possibly significant, contributor to the Second city of the United Kingdom article, I'd like to direct your attention to this edit on the Talk Page regarding a Request for Rational Debate on the subject of the article. All the best. Sprigot 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: your post on my Talk Page and on the 'Second city of the United Kingdom' Talk Page - I've responded here: Ministerial Opinion. I look forward to your response. Sprigot 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind note. It really was a shame. -- Aarktica 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I was given the new registered editor a compliment. By suggesting there's an alterior motive, it's you who is 'jumping to conclusion'. I'm not sure, I appreciate this 'character' attack. GoodDay 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you! Actually, "Walton"'s not my surname and it doesn't refer to Walton-on-the-Naze or Walton in Liverpool, though you were close. It's a location somewhere in the south-east of England. Sorry I can't be more specific on-wiki, as anyone could be reading this; I'll email you and tell you the rationale if y. ou're interested. Walton Assistance! 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Walton
Assistance! has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Sean Parker-Perry, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{ prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Mike33, I'm sorry to say that I think you're wrong. I have spent some more time on this since our previous conversation, and all of the sources I have been able to find, including independent and authoritative sources like Britannica ( here and without subscription here) and the Royal Family's own website ( here and here), indicate that the 1917 change in the royal house name to Windsor was a unilateral action of King George V, with no involvement from Parliament. The term "order-in-council", to which you seem to object strenuously, may or may not be correct, but the sources I cite rather use the term "royal proclamation".
I will be restoring most of the text that you wantonly deleted from this article on 2 June 2007, at least as far as is justified by the references I have cited. If you continue to disagree, I hope that we can work it out amicably. -- Tisco 01:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Mike, I was planning on reviewing you tonight on editor review, however, I am really tired and must be getting to bed, however, I will review you Wednesday afternoon/night. Sorry for the delay! -- w p k t sfs 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your edit to Frosted Flakes because the added text seemed to be word-for-word a copy of a deleted article. If you want to add a reference to this, please use your own words. -- Tony Sidaway 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mike33! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Your oppositions to the merger of the Controversy in parapsychology into Parapsychology seem to stem from the fact that you believe merging it would necessarily cut down useful information from it. However take another look at the Controversy in parapsychology article, most of the information in it is redundant or unsourced, it's written badly and could easily be condensed to 3-4 paragraphs without sacrificing any actual content. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, good enough reasoning. I didn't like the look of the allcaps and out-of-policy message there but entire removal in this situation seems OK due to WP:OR. GDonato ( talk) 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I get your point, but this is really the only official descriptive information available on the book, and the format and citation make it clear it's a quote. The was written to provide basic info about the forthcoming book and so "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." I feel like rewriting it kind of waters it down, especially since it is basically a temporary additon. TAnthony 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Were you able to access the info linked to by David.Monniaux? I don't have an account there and wasn't able to log in. If you do/could, could you give me the skinny? -- SandChigger 22:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
THANK YOU! I get a BARNSTAR? IN MY FIRST WEEK? WOW! Thank you! This might sound weird but I almost started to cry! Thank you SO much! If ya need anything ask me OK? Thanks and cheers! MAJ5 (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you comment at my editor review please? Thanks and Cheers! MAJ5 (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but your adopter has been a proven sockpuppet of a banned user User:Bugman94. Miranda 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there! Thanks for your input on the Manchester talk page, (I would say support but I don't think the issue in hand is about "sides" as such). I think you make very valid and helpful points, both on that page and elsewhere.
Anyway, what I was wondering about was if you'd be at all interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester?? I think it would benefit greatly from someone like yourself, and you seem to have the right approach and temprament to Wikipedia (which is probably something I don't!!).
It's not a terribly active project (it's in its infancy), but these groups usually act as good places to raise concerns and get feedback, as well as testing new ideas and allowing related articles to flourish. Hope you give it a thought, if not now, then in the future.
Feel free to contact me with any queries. Thanks again, Jza84 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mike,
Thank you for informing me about the "deletion review".
As far as I am aware, the wikpedia is one of any number of non-profit websites that posts articles/bios these days.
Since very many quality websites and blogs already host my images and biography, as a successful contemporary artist whose work has been very well received by art critics and patrons alike and sells on a regular basis, and as an educator who takes great pride in imparting my knowledge and experience to my students (I hold dual bachelors degrees in Fine Arts/Painting from the University of Madras, India, 1979 and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A-the latter with Honors in 1993, and a M.B.A from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1997. I developed a passion for art since early childhood and have been a successful art contest entrant since age ten), I naturally have no burning desire to add one more site to the already long list of web portals displaying my series of paintings. It was only because of those that happened to notice the block on my name during a keyword search, that I cited a few points of "notability and verifiability" regarding my work thus far.
Having said the above, I have absolutely no further desire, the time nor the inclination to pursue this any longer.
In closing, I sincerely wish to thank all the administrators who have made contributions on this issue.
Dear Mike33,
Thank you for the immediate response. As per your suggestion on my talk Page, I am submitting the following at your page.
Please consult details regarding Notability Verifiability already listed in my User Talk Page. My apologies for the incorrect usage by random users. I have no intention to contest your deletion policies. However, because of recent happenings at wikipedia I am compelled to jump in. Please refer to the following selected links that indicate notability/verifiability regarding my art career and which have Summary pages in Wikipedia.
For the last few days I have been trying to follow instructions by different wikipedia administrators, I am having a very hard time following any of the wikipedia codes, as well as using your Talk Pages. I need administator help and cooperation, in lieu of being directed to other wikipedia pages.
Thanks,
Beginning with the most recent:
2007
Recent publications that have featured a cover story on my art include:
Once again, I would appreciate closure on this issue asap.
UserChitra 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the mis-placed vandalism accusation. Douglasmtaylor 02:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike - Just a technical note - you have failed to sign your name under the nomination statement. It's a small thing really but you should sign to accdept, even on a self-nom. Best wishes. Pedro | Chat 08:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike. To withdraw simply make a comment at the top of the discussion that you wish to withdraw at this time and someone will archive the RFA for you. Pedro | Chat 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Good luck next time, Mike. If you want any further advice, I'm always happy to respond to comments on my talk page. See you around :) ck lostsword• T• C 13:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there are problems with RfA. I wouldn't have advised you to self-nominate with only 400 edits, but I think you make a valid point about vanity, and you shouldn't be opposed for being honest. Btw don't forget it's RfA, not AfD (you keep calling it AfD by mistake). And which "start new topic" link were you talking about? Walton One 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The second city anon has continued his campaign of editting, as well as set up some accounts and done some other distruptive things. I've raised my concerns here at the administrator's noticeboard, as I feel this is getting beyond a joke. Jza84 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
via User talk. - WarthogDemon 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Mike
Thanks for keeping me up-to-date with what was happening with this - good of you. pablo :: ... hablo ... 15:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, I think it is you who is failing to assume good faith here. I signed "cheers" simply because I felt like it, not for any specific reason, and I see no reason why you think I would mean it in any other than a light-hearted salutation. If I had meant it sarcastically, I would have made it rather more obvious. I'd also like to remind you of WP:NPA; I have no idea why you consider the commonplace word "cheers" a "wankerism", whatever that might mean... Cheers, DWaterson 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed it as I worked out what I did wrong. Thanks anyway. Davnel03 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading the comments on this user page and I would just like to say I think you should leave it where it is now. This is by no means a warning, rather a friendly suggestion to stop, otherwise it might stain your reputation and scupper any chances of becoming a beauracrat or administrator, etc. Thanks. :) R_Orange 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Imagine me posting 10 points of Wikipedia order which have nothing to do with anything? Would you be happy? I wasn't happy and I gave him a big red hand, I am getting tired of all of these socks. I want to make Wikipedia good and am quite prepared to bend to do that. If other people have other agendas fine. There is nothing in my conduct which would contribute a warning from you, and unless you were specifically asked to reprimand me, or stumbled accross my comments, then I would consider carefully what you are doing. Your contribution logs show that we have never edited similar/same articles. In this instance I accept your reprimand in good faith. In future please give me examples of my wrong doing. Mik e33 - t@lk 20:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_(5th_nomination) Lentower 03:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike. You might disagree with the conclusions, but you can't deny the fact that it is the only verifiable Government source that defines the exact limits of the cities. Yes, the definition of Manchester includes localities in their own right, but this is no different to London including a number of localities, New York including places like the Bronx, Queens, etc. The fact is that modern cities are made up of multiple localities centred around a large core. This is much the same as Manchester and the statistics I provided from the Department for Communities and Local Government back this up. EarlyBird 22:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As a recent, and possibly significant, contributor to the Second city of the United Kingdom article, I'd like to direct your attention to this edit on the Talk Page regarding a Request for Rational Debate on the subject of the article. All the best. Sprigot 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: your post on my Talk Page and on the 'Second city of the United Kingdom' Talk Page - I've responded here: Ministerial Opinion. I look forward to your response. Sprigot 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind note. It really was a shame. -- Aarktica 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I was given the new registered editor a compliment. By suggesting there's an alterior motive, it's you who is 'jumping to conclusion'. I'm not sure, I appreciate this 'character' attack. GoodDay 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)