User talk:Mike33/Archive 4

RE Happy Walton's Day
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) 

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.

Sean Parker-Perry
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-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on 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 Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments about Sean Parker-Perry. WP:PROD my not have been my greatest idea. I never noticed that the article had ever been tagged. Prod is always a good way of getting editors to improve articles that have no substance or notability. Afd seems harsh but I do take your thinking that it may improve an article. I have listed the Sean Parker Perry Afd Thanks for your guidance. Mike33 11:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I assume that most edits which violate the rules are done because of ignorance, and that's one of the things that user talk pages are for. Od Mishehu 11:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

House of Windsor
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)


 * Mike33, I do believe now that you have been in good faith, though a little more passionate than I would be. I hope you like what I have done with the page.  --Tisco 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
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! --wpktsfs 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Frosties kid
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)


 * Nice job. I hope it works out. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
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)

Concerning the merger debate.
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)

Sandworms of Dune
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)

Recent copyright revert
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)


 * The quote is 197 words. TAnthony 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

m:OTRS ticket linke
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)

Wow!
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)
 * BTW, our name rocks!  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm flattered! Also are you an admin? ;)  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is fun. They are idiots but they make life fun!  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

ER
Could you comment at my editor review please? Thanks and Cheers!  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What did you mean? I just said I got a barnstar.  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, true. I'll adopt you YAY! and I'm closing the ER.  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are adopted.  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
I am sorry, but your adopter has been a proven sockpuppet of a banned user User:Bugman94.  Mi r a n da   17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just gobsmacked. He seemed like the most promising editor we could wish for. Dedicated, Intellegent and friendly. Just feel like somebody has hit me with a paving slab, filmed it on their cell-phone and posted it to YouTube. Mike33 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, just see the disruptive history of this user by looking at the relative sockpuppets. I am very sorry that this happened to you. You may want to check here for new adopters.   Mi r a n da   17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, said user was rejected from adoption by the project for being a week-old account. He shouldn't have adopted you in the first place.  Experienced editors is the key.  In any case, after you're here for a while, you get a perspective on what's suspicious behavior; I actually pointed him out to admins a few days ago but had no idea who he was a sock of at the time.  BTW, contribution is a relative term.  Username violations aren't really as important as actual article edits, and MAJ had very few of those.  In any case, if you go back to the adoption page, you should be able to find some legitimate editor who really will help you. MSJapan 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Interested?
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 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)

Deletion Review Chitra Ramanathan
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.

Re: UNDELETE Summary Page, and Points of Verifiability & Notability listed below
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 Marquis Who's Who in America will be including my biography in the 2008 edition of Marquis' Who's Who in America due for release in October 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_Who's_Who)


 * 2007 I am a current committee member for the Committee on Cultural Diversity Practices of the College Art Association, New York (CAA News | College Art Association (http://www.collegeart.org/news/newcommitteemembers.html)...Cultural Diversity Committee | Committees | College Art Association, Chitra Ramanathan, Indianapolis Art Center (2007-2010) .... Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research. (1992): Vol. 34, No. 1. (Charland) ... http://www.collegeart.org/committees/diversity.html). A contributing member of College Art Association (http://www.collegeart.org) since 1997, I have also served the Services to Artists Committee from 2003-2006. Earlier this year (2007), I was selected as a candidate for CAA's Board of Directors for 2008-2011, which I declined.


 * 2007 I have been invited to the Florence Biennale December1-9, 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Biennale) by the International Committee of the Biennale upon noticing images of my series of paintings on websites such as http://www.askart.com that has also featured my biography in the 2005 AskART.com Inc. - Dunbier, Lonnie Pierson (Editor) The Artists Bluebook 34000 North American Artists to March 2005: BOOK REFERENCES for Chitra Ramanathan ... Books Published Per Decade that Include this Artist ... Dunbier, Lonnie Pierson (Editor), The Artists Bluebook ... (http://www.askart.com/AskART/artists/search/Search_Grid.aspx?searchtype=BOOKS&artist=130159-Biography Chitra Ramanathan (http://www.askart.com/AskART/artists/biography.aspx?searchtype=BIO&artist=130159). This is a website that only includes reputed work after an editorial screening process, and maybe Wikipedia has links to this website.


 * 2006 my series of paintings were selected for Public Art installation titled "Picture Windows 2006: Urban Interpretations" by the Arts Council of Indianapolis, a recent project instituted in order to beautify and project the city of Indianapolis as a prime Cultural Art Destination in the U.S. This project is supported by the Indianapolis Cultural Development Commission. (Please refer to: http://www.indyarts.org/artists_publicart.aspx, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis,_Indiana, or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_R._Boehm)


 * 2005 I was invited as Visiting Artist-Lecturer by Professor Maurice Cockrill, RA Keeper and Head, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Cockrill) to the Royal Academy of Arts, London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Academy) after he came across images of my paintings. I completed the tour in October 2005. My name is featured on the RA Staff website - RA Schools Prospectus - RA Schools - Royal Academy of Arts Professors of Architecture: Peter Cook RA, Ian Ritchie RA ... Michael Petry, Simon Pittuck, Brendan Prendeville, Chitra Ramanathan, Ben Ravenscroft, ..(http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/raschools/prospectus/staff,75,AR.html)


 * 2004 the MGM Mirage commissioned me to create two 4 ft X 6 ft paintings bearing my signature, a rare privilege for an artist from the organization. The paintings were based on two of my 1999 and 2000 pieces, and are on permanent display in their Cafe Bellagio, Las Vegas since October 2004. (mirage las vegas The Artist Chitra Ramanathan Has Recently Completed a Major Commission ... mirage las vegas the mirage wikipedia the free encyclopedia ... (http://www.bouldercitynev.com/mirage-las-vegas/archive_02_2007.php)

2007

Recent publications that have featured a cover story on my art include:


 * The Indianapolis Business Journal, "Women in Art" April 9-15, 2007 (http://www.ibj.com/html/indianapolis_business_journal.html-"Creative Pursuit of Happiness" 2007-04-09 With permission from Pacheco, Della, Marketing Editor: Copyright IBJ Corporation Apr 09, 2007 (c) 2007 Indianapolis Business Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning.


 * Article titled "Pursuit of Happiness" July-August 2007 issue of the Indianapolis Star newspaper's Fishers|Geist Magazine, a new bi-monthly publication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_Star, http://www.indystar.com/fishersgeist/)

Once again, I would appreciate closure on this issue asap.

UserChitra 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the heads up on the mis-placed vandalism accusation. Douglasmtaylor 02:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA
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)
 * Thank you for reminding me about the procedural signing the nomination. Mike33 08:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. My Oppose of your RFA is not a personal thing. I see great work from you but you have really shot yourself in the foot with your answers to the questions. I'd sugest a withdraw but it's up to you. As I said at RFA I'm always happy to help out. Pedro | Chat  08:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mike you are very right. Your approach is honest and refreshing. There is so much politics at RFA it's not true, and it's getting worse IMHO. I guess that sometimes you have to play the Politics and Politically Correct games because you know that you want the tools to genuinely help the project. At RFA, people will cut you down for the slightest and often oddest reason. If you're true to yourself (i.e. you want admin tools to genuinely help out) then whether one's RFA passes or fails becomes less important - at least you know you offered your time and commitment to this project for worthwhile reasons, and if the community can't see that it's their loss not yours. Of course, there is the issue of failed RFA candidates leaving the project in disgust - but that doesn't allways happen (I withdrew my own RFA last month when an editor pointed out a serious ommission in my knowledge and I'm still here!). Stick around mate, keep helping out and don't view adminship as a trophy. It really isn't - you don't even get paid !! Pedro | Chat  09:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing you RFA
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)

Your withdrawn nomination
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)
 * Ditto. As I stated - If I'm around I'll be happy to help. I see you are UK based so we on on the same timezone. Incidentally CK (above) is a very talented editor (and an admin) and I'm often bugging him for help on admin tasks. Any time you need me just come to my talk page. Pedro | Chat  13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply
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? WaltonOne 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right - it's because I had a username change yesterday, and didn't update the box accordingly. My fault. I've fixed it, it should work now. Thanks for pointing it out. WaltonOne 13:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Mancunian anon
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)


 * I've left more comments here, about the ongoing problem with Rob right. He's appeared as User:79.73.36.212 and is still reverting dispite calls for debate. Jza84 00:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You Made A Mistake While Welcoming People
via User talk. -WarthogDemon 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. :) -WarthogDemon 00:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mafia
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)

Your comments on my talk page
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 see you have also decided to highlight this on your userpage. I now consider this an unprovoked, bizarre, and downright rude ad hominem attack. Please stop immediately. Kind regards, DWaterson 18:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Help Me Tag
I removed it as I worked out what I did wrong. Thanks anyway. Davnel03 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
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)
 * Although I welcome imput from every editor on my conduct, it really isn't a great idea to stumble half way through a debate and ask another editor to desist. The editor who's page I left a note on is a possible sock, he left 10 references on the Talk:Manchester page which had nothing to do with anything. It was disruptive and it was a nuisence.

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 e 33 - t @ lk  20:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just assuming a neutral point of view and I agree with you on the subject of sockpuppets on Wikipedia, they are damn annoying. But do you have evidence that the IP address user is one?. Would be sure glad to ask for AIV if so. Thanks :) R_O (Talk) 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is in it's 5th AfD
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 Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_%285th_nomination%29 Lentower 03:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Population
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)

Re: Second city of the United Kingdom - Request for Rational Debate
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: Second city of the United Kingdom - Ministerial Opinion
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)


 * I've replied here. Sprigot 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: RFA
Thanks for the kind note. It really was a shame. --Aarktica 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:

 * On friday (07/20) you posted a notice on my user page about biting IP addresses. It infered that my posts to IP addresses would be unhelpful in attempting to become a useful bureaucrat or admin. I replied to you but it seems to have been archived, without a final reply. I explained my reasons and on my watchlist I found this comment from you to another IP user User_talk:195.212.52.6. Your comments on my talk page are open to all. I explained my rationale, but I do feel that I should also point out to you that if my actions were wrong you should not repeate them albeit yours were in a verbose manner. Mike33 - t@lk 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because I actually had evidence of their activities and the suspected sockpuppet template was on their page so I added my message on it. I must have forgotten to put it on Rob-right, but it seems that user address may have, only if slightly, more edits on mainspace so therefore I should subject them to the message rather than the "less important" editor, in this case Rob Right. And also in reference to your second city of the united kingdom debate, I believe you are "sniping" at people unnecessarily, your response to my commment was extremely rude and any sarchasm that was in it was abrupt in it's manner. I don't need you to tell me how to write, I will write my comments anyway I like and if that involves using big words then I will do it everytime. I now appreciate the concerns that User:DWaterson has left on your talk page. R_O (Talk) 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I may as well just leave Wikipedia. Sincerely, R_O (Talk) 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I apologise for my terribly inappropriate behaviour the other day, see I had had a family bereavement and to be honest I didn't feel all that well. I just slumped in front of the comupter and coined in the first things that cam into my head. My arguments about your "sarchasm" probably weren't as exaggerated as I first expressed, and again, I apologise. This probably does sound cliché, considering what I just said, but I didn't do this as a PR stunt or for attention, infact it was rather the opposite. On my part, I would also like to thank you for taking a "Wikibreak" after my actions. I would like to neutralise our once hostile of editorships and will surrender any unfounded argument I made, with any inappropriate response to it. With my deepest regards and requests for you to come back to editing Wikipedia as before. And just a quick note, I couldn't resist Wikipedia for any longer so I removed by Wikibreak notice and the black userbox with a name just can't remember. R_O (Talk) 18:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Would just like to inform you of a username change. I now link here. Thanks. Onnaghar (Formerly: Radio orange) 12:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New registered editor
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)