User talk:Michael Patrick

Rollback
Hello Michael Patrick, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Acalamari 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Houses
I have to disagree with your reasoning. There is no particular reason to give priority to the housing development, when it is newer than the other two. I think the current, neutral arrangement is the better one. The older settlement near the newer one is very much determined to maintain its historic differentiation from the upstart subdivision. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Revising all my edits since 2007
Thanks for that "reminder" to refer only to qualified literary sources(not websites or newspapers) when I made my edits...I have now removed all my original edits that demanded "qualified literary sources"(like the one for the San Jacinto Police Department) from you, because I was afraid that you'd report me for "vandalism" on anything that caused you to get upset...and that if I linked the source to that edit, it will not be allowed by you personally(but allowed by others)...

Please don't be so harsh on me, as I'm trying to follow the rules here...even if I start using the "sandbox" again from now on exclusively (for other edit-testing), does this mean that you'll invade it with "demands for literary sources" too?...just curious...Baldwin91006 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be harsh, but many things just need citation. I don't have a clear memory of exactly what I edited that was yours, except the San Jacinto text and that one item about racism in the Adelanto police.  If it's notable enough for the world to know, and if you have a credible citation, include it, but otherwise it's accusatory.  The "claim that city officials deny" text in the San Jacinto article is similar; it implies someone's lying, which is accusatory, unless it's both credibly cited and notable enough for the world to know.  In both cases, though, I merely asked for citation, which is not "you're wrong" or "you're vandalizing" or "you're not welcome."  Wikipedia just demands that information generally be backed up by citation, and it also demands a neutral point of view.  Michael Patrick (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee whiz, Baldwin, please don't overreact like that...he's just trying to do his job...although I agree with both of you on the editing thing...so please don't start crying over spilt milk and inappropriate edits, OK?...just congratulate him and let's get the show rolling...

Sorry I had to calm him down, Michael, but hopefully he'll better understand the editing rules...Michaela92399 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you just scared him into a tearful apology(I talked to him offline this morning), which will be forthcoming...Michaela92399 (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of KMKE-LP


A tag has been placed on KMKE-LP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:KMKE-LP. Michael Patrick (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect vandal warning
Hi. I noticed that you tagged User talk:86.156.154.192 with a vandal warning. Unfortunately you picked the wrong editor. I have reverted your edit and warned the correct IP instead. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I know the apology's very late, I would like to apologize for that. Michael Patrick (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Women's history editathon
Hey - Sorry for the late notice, but since you have yourself tagged as living in the Bay Area, I thought you might appreciate notification that we’re having an event Saturday! It’ll be held at Hoyt Hall, an all-women's house of the Berkeley Student Cooperative from 3 to 6 pm tomorrow. The main event page is here. Anyone is welcome to show up, but we’re expecting a significant number of people to come who have literally never edited Wikipedia before. If you’re an experienced Wikipedian who would be able to provide useful help to some of the newbies, your presence would be especially appreciated (and it might be a good idea for you to show up at 2 or 2:30 instead of three. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC) I’m AWB’ing this message to all Wikipedians who have tagged themselves in the bay area.  I’m sorry if the message isn’t of interest to you; feel free to delete it.   I’ll be unlikely to send future messages in a similar way, but if really don’t want to receive future messages of this sort, please let me know.

Proposed deletion of National Recreational Properties


The article National Recreational Properties has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)