User talk:MikeWazowski/Archive 2

AnimeIowa Page Revision
Do not alter our emergency message again. This is a crisis on our end and we have virtually no other way of telling our userbase that our domain is down. I'm reverting your change and I'm going to keep reverting it if you keep changing it. I'll remove it once this disaster is resolved. Cverlo 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not your convention's personal webpage, and this information does not belong on this site. Do not order me around, especially in a situation where you are violating community standards. MikeWazowski 05:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sent a notice to WP:AN/I about Cverlo's threats to edit war. If you want to contribute anything more, feel free to do so. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Borg War
Why are you giving me such a hard time with these edits? It's not like they're earth-shaking or anything. I'm the guy who made the film. Believe me, if I were going to make up things, I could make up much more imaginative stuff than the information you're reverting. If you've got a problem, call me on toll free number: 800-743-8951

It's not a matter of whether I'm "impartial" or not. This isn't a review; just a collection of facts. I'm just trying to keep the entry accurate and your reverts are simply making the article less accurate.

You're reverting things that can be easily proven -- such as the fact that the website claims to have 1.3 million downloads. That the website makes that claim is a fact -- which you would have found out if you had clicked on the link I added and looked at the blinking number at the top of the page.

Similarly, since I made the Borg War website, the change I made recently that "Geoffrey James" is "claiming" that a certain number of downloads is is also a fact. You changed that back, too. And that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Why are you busting my chops on this? You're just making the entry less accurate.

RE: The showing of Borg War at the official convention. You are incorrect. New Voyages may have been shown at some conventions, but there is only one officially-licensed Star Trek convention and that's the one that put on by Creation Entertainment. Both Gary Bermen, the CEO of Creation Entertainment, and John Van Citters, the CBS person responsible for Star Trek product development (games and conferences) have confirmed that the BW showing was the first to be approved. I posted the email thread from CBS on the Of Gods and Men website. You're free to contact the sources, if you like. The writer of the referenced article did so. Unless you can cite an actual article that shows that NV was approved by CBS at an official convention, then you're just expressing your memory of a rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.96.25 (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Empire
I've responded to your reply on The Empire Strikes Back's talk page. The Filmaker 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Hey Mike,

Sorry to have taken the lead on the webcomic AfD, but I've grown very tired of overloyal fankids trying to violate our rules/policies because they're overly interested in non-notable content. I believe your AfD was appropriate, and it appears most of the community agrees.

/Blaxthos 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones
Thanks for your contributions to the Indiana Jones page. Note that a good proportion (not all, but most) of the show was released in 1999, with George Halls sections removed. The article does not state these elements have been retconned by Lucas, or that they are no longer canon. It does however say that their canonicity is now unclear - a fair statement. Therefore the qualifying note about the 93 year old Indy stays. Regarding the fact that the elder Indy sections will be removed for the DVD release, this is in fact the case; however I can't find a direct citation for it, so I'll leave your edit in there. Mikejstevenson 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you being foolish? You appear to be interested in getting involved with edit wars - surely you can find better things to do with your time? Mikejstevenson 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not interesting in discussing it I see. Fair enough. Mikejstevenson 05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not interested in paying attention to or noticing my comments and discussion on your user page and the Indiana Jones talk page? Fair enough backatcha. MikeWazowski 05:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Anime Convention
Mike, I'm not sure which part of this discussion you are commenting about. My statement that they have been added is referring to This Edit, in reply to Farix's request for independent, non-trivial, reliable sources stating that. That referred all the way back to my assertion that AAC is the largest anime convention in the state. Kopf1988 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mindbridge Foundation
Mike, have you ever heard of a -prod-? Kopf1988 18:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AnimeIowa
Mike, the article speaks for itself. I really have to do little to prove my case, which is why I would say you were operating in bad faith. Kopf1988 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Audio Dramas
Recently there was an unsuccessul attempt to create an article for Pendant Productions, one of the production Groups that is making Star Trek audio dramas, specifically ST: Defiant. I negotiated to have it put on my talk space so that I could rehabilitate it by turning it into a split-off article on Star Trek fan audio dramas. Its starting to take shape now and I'd like a bit of advise on different formatting aspects of it: is it too big? Should i drop the actors wikitable? Am I using the InfoBoxes correctly? ... It currently isn't fully populated with data so it isn't ready to post as an article yet - when it is, I'll get your opinion as to its viability re: notability since I think the concept is as full of holes as a cobblers purse. I'd appreciate your help getting it set up before it get's released though so that the majority of problems are settled before hand. if you don't have the time yourself, is there someone you know who could help? Thanks --Kirok of L&#39;Stok 16:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

SDeletion tags
Regarding the four Scottish historians you tagged one after the other: every one asserts notability, though the question this notability relative to wikipedia standards is a separate question. I doubt any of them would get deleted through a vote, but who knows. They are clearly not candidates for speedy deletion however, so I removed the tags. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability
You recently edited an article for Dekker Dreyer... the article is up for deletion based on notability, and I would like to ask you to chime in on the discussion of that deletion. Wikimegamaster 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Unity
You have deleted the entry on Star Trek Unity. Why? They may not be filming right now, but they are recording for an audio-only season. Wich equals "in production" for an audio production. 81.201.238.210 11:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

About AI Edit
About this edit:

Well, there was this edit where you worded your summary as if you were representing AnimeIowa. Regardless, why don't you two kids stop trying to play "Who's got the biggest thing" and just post a new link when it finally exists? Please leave the petty posturing for somewhere else. MikeWazowski 05:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to note I am now affiliated with AnimeIowa, unlike I was in previous edits (and haven't edited them since, btw). I tend to use "we" a lot just as a generalization, however. By "we" I mean the convention itself is working on the problem, my fault, I'm definitely not perfect. Thank you, though, and the discussion has ended on that page so I hope. Kopf1988 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you were talking about the summary "Notice for visitors trying to get to the website." I dunno if that really says I'm from AnimeIowa either. I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to misrepresent myself. I'm just one editor out of thousands. Kopf1988 05:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1906
Do you understand how my giving this guy warnings for deleting CSD & AfD templates is bad faith? This really makes me laugh. I don't know what some people are thinking. See the comments he left on my talk page and the ones that I returned. Slightly amusing. - Rjd0060 00:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's completely off-base and wrong on every count - looks to be bitter that us "bullies" won't kowtow to whatever he wants... MikeWazowski 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought so. Thanks for the clarification. - Rjd0060 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Knight AFD
I did change because the WSJ, ABC and C|Net news make it notable to me. While some are blogs, I think blogs on the news sites, such as WSJ are a far different standard than John Doe blogs. We'll see what happens but I think he's notable. Travellingcari (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Eric Skys
An article that you have been involved in editing, Eric Skys, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Eric Skys. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars fan films
Mike, You dinged me as a spammer for inculding a link to my site for Star Wars fan films on different pages. Your comment was that there was nothing on my site that can't be gotten from the home or original sites, amd that I wasn't involved in making any of these films. That comment was very fair in a some cases, but there were some places where that's certainly untrue:

On the "fan films" page, The Force.net, etc. are listed, but my site has far more films available than any of the sites that are listed there, and some of those films are ONLY available at my site. So, excluding my site leaves out a resource that is unique in what it offers compared to the others.

On the page for the film "Troops", I pointed out that my site has the film available in HQ, a much clearer, larger version than you can find elsewhere.

For the film "Knightquest", I pointed out that I have the film available as a complete film, as opposed to having to download and watch the film in three parts, which is what you get anywhere else.

I didn't intend any of it as spam, but I understand why you hit me on some of the other pages. In the near future, I will have higher-quality versions of some other films available too that wouldn't be avialable anywhere else, and I would like to be able to let people know when that's in place. For example, I have been in contact with the maker of Dark Redemption, and he is sending me a DVD-quality version of the film so that I can offer it in a much higher quality than previously available, and as a complete film instead of 5 parts.

Kuatengineer (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)kuatengineer

You have missed the point entirely. Whether or not you have different, possibly better, versions is irrelevant. The most important point is that Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for you to promote your website. Please read this page for some guidelines. Any further attempts by you to insert links to your website will be removed. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuatengineer"

Mike, I understand what you are saying, and I can certainly see your point where it comes to the individual films. As you say, I can see where a better, or unique version of a film may not be by itself a solid reason to include my web site, given the guidelines that you directed me to read. However, I respectfully disagree where it comes to the wikipedia page regarding fan films in general. I'm not sure I understand why my web site would be excluded from the external links there. Keep in mind that the entire purpose of the site is to be the most complete resource possible for finding Star Wars fan films. As I said, there are more films there than in any other single place, and there are films that aren't available anywhere else. Just as important (I think, after reading from the link you provided), the site is not to call attention to me, and it's not an advertisement, IMO. The site is a non-revenue resource, and always will be. The sole purpose is to help people find these films, which you rightly pointed out before I had no part in making. I think ot would be a valuable resource for people looking for further information about Star Wars films. And believe me, I'm not here to argue back and forth as I see on some of the topics here. I just feel strongly about what I am saying, and I respectfully ask you to reconsider. You definitely won't see me trying to go back in and add a link without your permission. Kuatengineer (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Clone troopers article
Hi there. Yesterday I spent a lot of time editing the above article - which consisted of correcting grammar errors, content errors, and generally making the article easier to read. I feel that all of my edits were viable and within Wikipedia policy, so I am reverting your removal of them all. If you still disagree with this, please discuss this on my talk page, or on the article talk page. Thanks  The Moridian   08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use TR2N Logo for Tron Wiki
Hi there,

I was wondering if I can have your permission to use your "TR2N" logo for my Tron-related Wikia? I will credit you and use the same license for the image. The link to the wiki is: http://tron.wikia.com

Thanks in advance

-Mr. Sinistar (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent AfD comments
You may want to expand upon your reasoning in your AfD nominations. As it stands (especially in the cases where the nominator made a very terse nomination), the closing admin is likely to grant less weight to your opinions than to others who have articulated them more clearly. Also, you appear to have been around for some time but your AfD participation and userpage are very similar to a previously banned editor. I assume that this is a coincidence but I just wanted to inform you that you might be caught up in a cloud of suspicion on that basis. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to run a checkuser on me - I'm not a sock of Fredrick_day, per your link - and other than agreeing that there are some serious sourcing issues with the articles I commented on in the AfD discussions, I fail to see why you think I'm this other person... MikeWazowski (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are. I'm also not the bad guy here.  User:Abd has something of a long history with Fred Day and would likely pursue this to some end were he to happen upon this page.  And the only reason I mentioned the link was because almost all of Fred Day's userpages were just "hi".  but regardless, you should still probably tack on some rationale for your deletion vote on those AfD's.  Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was trying to accuse you of something. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tron2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tron2.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. BJBot (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fan film tagging
Most were reference tags, the ones I added for notability wer for the most pathetic articles, they are just plot summaries of fan films. 74.13.109.25 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the WP:AN3 report on, both of you are in violation and can both be blocked if the reverting continues. Revert warring over a notability tag is a silly thing to do anyway - if it isn't notable, it can be merged or deleted.  Talk it out on the talk page. --B (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)