User talk:Mikaey/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Greenwaldian Theorem
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Greenwaldian Theorem, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greenwaldian Theorem
An editor has nominated Greenwaldian Theorem, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Greenwaldian_Theorem.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Greenwaldian_Theorem.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Core desat 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to USS Nausett (ACM-15) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Happy new Headcheese!- hexa Chord 2  02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad, I just formed my #REDIRECT wrong. Mikaey (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:uw-test1&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I just checked your contributions on talk pages and noticed that you do generally sign your own posts. I guess you just forgot that time. Don't worry as I have signed the comment for you. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Some tools to help
Other than clicking on the sign image you see on pages you edit, there are some tools that you can use. If you use Mozilla Firefox, Safari, or Opera as your web browser, there are tools such as Twinkle (TW for short) and Friendly that may help you. These tools add extra tabs on all pages. Twinkle, for example, will add a "warn" tab on user talk pages. From there you can easily select the warning template, warning level, add the article, and any additional text. When you submit it, Twinkle will automatically add the warning template and all parameters. It will also automatically add your signature. All you do is just a few clicks. If you want to easily enable these tools without customizing them, just go to your preferences and click the "Gadgets" tab. Then check the boxes "Twinkle" and "Friendly" under "Editing gadgets" and "Compatibility function..." under "Library and compatibility gadgets". Click save and these tools will load the next time you go to an article or talk page. Hope that helps. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Requests for permissions/Denied/January 2009. SoxBot X (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin
My text wasn't edited, it was reversed. I was trying to improve the article by removing POV and making neater summaries.Kurzon (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look further back at my edit history and you'll see my edits were heavy rewrites to flimsy sections, not reverts done to annoy people. Also, nobody else has really done anything substantial for this article for quite some time.  In the months I've been working on it, other writers have only been adding snippets or links.Kurzon (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So... if I added extensive justifications to my edits, they might pass? People complain that this article is biased, and I'm trying to FIX that.  Also, I replaced the lead image of Stalin with a photograph, but Tocino thinks the previous painting is better.  A painting, especially a flattering one made for propaganda, is inferior to an actual photograph, especially on as sharp as the one I've put in (you can even see his pockmarks).Kurzon (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I have made sure that I have not violated the 3RR rule because I have been suspended for this in the past. I have waited patiently for a day to pass before I could add the better, more famous image of Stalin (which was on the article before Kurzon came along). Unfortunately, Kurzon has taken a different tactic and in the past couple of hours he has reverted three times without an edit summary to two different editors. --Tocino 08:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Late Bloomer
I came across the AfD on Late bloomer, which seems interesting & worth keeping, but had no references. They are not really needed, since it is a summary-type article with links to fully-referenced articles on the people mentioned, but I started doing the mechanical job of adding references. Then I saw your note that the article seems to have degraded from earlier versions. In what way? Don't want to continue adding refs if an earlier version would be a better starting point... Aymatth2 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Query about an "official page"
Hi Mikaey, Yesterday I attempted to post a page on here on behalf of an organisation for which I am currently working as an intern (FDC). Only problem was that we have a specific and official way of saying things which happens to be that of the website and several primary, so I just referenced there. In your review you stated "We cannot accept copyrighted content taken from web sites or printed sources." There are several similar non-profit organisations which have pages on Wikipedia with their official statements published too, I was just wondering if copyright still applies when you are the authorised party? Is there any way I can have this article published without changing the words away from our official statement? Also if I just change the words briefly so it is different from the website but still conveys the message of our organisational profile can it then be published? Any help would be much appreciated as I am pretty stuck with where to go on this. Thank you so much in advance RyanBEdwards (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The user here is talking about this page from the AfC queue. I declined it because at least one section (About the FDC) seemed to be a word-for-word copy from their website.  Notwithstanding any other issues with this article, would someone like to weigh in on the issue of the text's copyright status?  If the organization agrees to let the text be published under the GFDL, would he be good?  Thanks, Matt (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the organization releases the text as GFDL through an OTRS email, there should be no problem with the "copyrights"; but the article as a whole has too much WP:COI and how they wrote their phone numbers and email addresses looks spamy. The article dosen't say anything about notability of the company either. Oh you were asking only about copyrights..sorry. An OTRS email would be sufficient. The relevant guide for getting the permissions is here -- Unpopular Opinion ( talk ) 07:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin
Check out these latest series of edits by User:Kurzon on the Joseph Stalin article. Link here=. He is completely re-writing paragraphs and removing some sourced information. Is there any way we can stop this without getting in edit wars? Remember, the article was a former featured article candidate. It doesn't need this overhaul. --Tocino 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Theory
You seem to be rather quick with your actualizations and undid my edit. There is nothing un-neutral about quoting dictionary definitions. Your edit is the non neutral one. To point out that the usage of the term is not as narrow as the article pretends by quoting a dictionary is quite balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My "changes don't make sense"?
Sorry, but could you please explain why it is that my changes make no sense to you? I don't understand why "Taekwondo" should be italicized at every instance in the article. Also, my adding of the   template was completely justified. I understand that you're trying to gain experience in reverting vandalism in order to receive the rollback feature, but my changes were legitimate, so I have reverted your edit. If it was a mistake of some sort, just let me know. Otherwise, discuss it with me first before reverting it again. Thanks. — Fatal Error 05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Initially, it looked like a manual of style issue, but I can't corroborate it.  So I'll let your changes stand. Matt (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Sorry if I sounded angry or anything like that, it just seemed like you reverted my edits just for the hell of it. — Fatal Error 06:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, your reaction was perfectly understandable. Matt (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Good luck with the new tool. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  06:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte, North Carolina
Read what I said in your Sand box I am not CHANGING WHAT I SAID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.221.176 (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus
Sorry about the confusion back on the Diabetes page. Doctor Incarnate6 (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert
Thank you. :) Acalamari 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. :-) Matt (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Action T4
Howdy, thanks for the revert on the Action T4 article. There is an ongoing dispute on that section and if you have the time (and are so inclined) your input would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Edie Britt
How is the edit disruptive, it's a better quote that shows what the charater of Edie Britt is about, who would want to sit and read a big huge paragraph that AdamDeanHall added --82.39.152.89 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, i just thought it was a bit odd that i was being called a vandal for adding a little quote because this quote shows the characteristics of the character more, shes funny and witty and it would be less writing for people to read, but thank you for apologising --82.39.152.89 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

P = NP problem
My work is constructive. Thank you for addressing it.--76.79.179.55 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if you have been edited by someone who perhaps understand more about math than you do. Do not be offended. P=NP, ,--76.79.179.55 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

helpme

I've probably already violated the 3RR rule myself, but this user has also. I'm trying to explain the point to him of no original research. Can someone take a look at his source and verify whether or not his source is original research? (BTW, here is the discussion I've been having with him. He seems insistent on blanking his own talk page.) Matt (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that this falls under WP:NOR. For an issue like P = NP, if it was proven either way the proper channel would be to publish findings in a peer-reviewed journal - WP is not a place to publicize new research. I've warned the user.


 * From the cited source:


 * "NP contains P. I've discovered a marvelous proof that NP and P are unequal, but this web page is too small to contain it. Too bad, since otherwise I'd be eligible for $1,000,000 [CMI00]." -- Aseld  talk  02:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, sir. Matt (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Message
Hi, I've left a response to your message on my user page --     04:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lois Ayres
Okay Matt...I hope I am going to the correct spot here. I recently had you remove my bit on Lois Ayres (which was needed) but my question is, why would the fact that she dateted slash be uncited when I gave the exact page of it being mentioned in Slash's auto biography??? Again I appologize for having placed the bit in the article, but I wasnt sure exactly how to go about the whole edititing process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.122.170 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay Matt, thanks for the advice...would you take a look at my Lois Ayres Contribution and tell me if you think its up to par??? Thanks for the help  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.122.170 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Matt
I understand why you edited my comments on the camry and honda. If you choose to write an article lets see both sides of the story as unfair trade is a large part of the profits made by Japanees auto makers. The way these articles are written, although informative and accurate, make them sound like advertisements showing only the positive sides of these products. The sale of imports is one of the factors that brought on this economic depression.Kaltenborn (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kaltenborn's comments were just removed from the Honda Accord article (see this edit.) Can we take a look at blocking this user?  He has entered racial slurs into Honda Accord, and Toyota Camry, as well as [this edit] to Kia Motors.  These edits are nasty and cumbersome to remove due to the level of article integration.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What?
Stop the bus. Refering to someone as a Jap is no different than calling someone a Pollock, a W.O.P. or even a Jew. If your going to be so sensitive put a dress on. Now that ive made my point, lets see some of you integrate these points into the article. I would do so, exept one "editor" would piss in the ear of another of my "Vandalism".Kaltenborn (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lois Ayres
You may want to keep the article on your watch list, as an anon reverted your edits. THF (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)