User talk:MikeJ9919

Thanks

For the welcome. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I've been getting started at a new job. Anyway, regarding the James Wilson Scholarship at Penn, I see the page you used and that looks to be the case now. I received a James Wilson Scholarship and it was only $15,000 (not that I'm ungrateful) and it was only for one year. I guess whatever fund they are using to pay these scholarships out has gotten some more cash! Dslawe 13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THON

Hey MikeJ9919, I just wanted to thank you for your work on the THON page – you're adding some great stuff! It's always cool to see someone take an article you created and make it grow. Now we've got one of the most comprehensive THON pages on the web! Thanks for your help, and also, welcome to the wikipedia! --Spangineer ∞ 13:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Partial birth

mike, i dont care the least bit of what happens to this page, i think you have outed yourself as a pro-life-supporter (I'm not sure) but I understand that you are happy to support our vandalistic friend IP 214.13.4.151. (If you think the one edit that caused the npov-tag was harmless look at the others.) Go ahead I dont care. Do whatever you like. I will not be in your way on any of these subjects for a while, if it isn't possible to at least mark npov articles as such, there's nothing I can do for you. --Fenice 15:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're lending credence to his vandalism.
I've been cleaning up after this person for days, this is ridiculous and it is a personal attack. Leave me alone with this entire issue. --Fenice 15:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshido

Hi. I put the following on the VfD page:

Note - Sockpuppetry is futile. The admin who makes the final tally will, by long-established precedent, give proportionately less weight to votes from any accounts with few edits, and practically none to those with one or two, especially if they are all on this VfD. If anyone of the seeming multitude of concerned newbies has actually been an anonymous user for a while and wants to get previous edits assigned to their new account, this is the time to do so if they want their vote to "weigh" more. Fire Star 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards a keep vote myself. We have so many crappy little articles about trivial fancruft that I don't see any harm in having a Bullshido article. I am going to look up their Alexa Internet ranking and Google hit count and get back to you. Cheers, Fire Star 22:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indented comments on a numbered list

Hi; I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apollomelos, and just wanted to fill you in on how to fix numbered lists with indented comments. A lot of people here are unfamiliar with how to fix this type of wikicode...probably because it doesn't come up very often. Nevertheless, it's pretty handy for when you contribute to votes and other numbered lists, so here goes.

To fix the broken wikicode (which renders as the list below):

# Comment One
# Comment Two
:: Reply to Comment Two
::: Response to the Reply to Comment Two
:: Reply Two to Comment Two
# Comment Three
# Comment Four

Comment One
Comment Two

Reply to Comment Two

Response to the Reply to Comment Two

Reply Two to Comment Two

Comment Three
Comment Four

...replace the first colon of each indented item with a number sign(#). This seems to inform the rendering engine that the numbered list continues past the indented remarks. The new wikicode:

# Comment One
# Comment Two
#: Reply to Comment Two
#:: Response to the Reply to Comment Two
#: Reply Two to Comment Two
# Comment Three
# Comment Four

Comment One
Comment Two
Reply to Comment Two
Response to the Reply to Comment Two

Reply Two to Comment Two
Comment Three
Comment Four

Ta da! Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i Faith

Hi Mike, this is Bryan, my user ID is Cunado19

I absolutely didn't intend to delete the Baha'i Faith page. Actually I thought somebody else did, and I was in the middle of reverting when you wrote me.

I didn't realize there was a talk page, and I just started using Wikipedia a few days ago. I edited the page where I found problems, or saw an opportunity to explain things more clearly. In general I was following Shoghi Effendi's outline of history, and I added some relevant quotes from GPB. I changed the marriage information because to mention the exclusion of homosexual marriage is a touchy subject, and Baha'is should be careful not to be put into the black and white categories of pro-homo or anti-homo. It's a debate about chastity. I changed the heading of Shoghi Effendi to "The Formative Age of the Faith", because that follows the way Shoghi Effendi outlined it. I changed some things about the passing of Shoghi Effendi, and I was in the middle of providing references for the statistics under the demographics heading. I realized that it needed another page, so I created a "Baha'i Statistics" page, and put a link to it under "Demographics".

I'll finish what I'm in the middle of right now. Please let me know if you find any problems with how the information is presented. I don't want to be a nuisance to people who spend a lot of time and debate about how the site should look.

Cunado19 05:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do have 2 questions for you. I deleted the whole page again and had to revert. What am I doing? The only thing I can think of is that I hit "save page" instead of "show preview".

and also, once I create a new page, how can I change the actual title of the page, as well as make redirect links for similar page titles. For example, I created Ten Year Crusade, then I realized that it is case-sensitive, and that I should have made it as ten year Crusade. I also want to make it redirect other titles to the one single page, so that Ten Year Crusade and ten year crusade all get redirected to ten year Crusade.

And with the edit summaries, I didn't even realize what that box was for until a few minutes ago. I'll see what I can do.

and like I said, if I'm doing something alarming just let me know. I'll go post on the talk page.

Cunado19 06:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikifying dates

Please stop unwikifying dates. All dates have to be wikified throughout an article for good reason. Some people use the format dd/mm/yy, some mm/dd/yy, some yy/mm/dd. Users are able in their preferences to decide which format they want to see dates in articles shown to them as. But that only works if all dates are wikified. If they are left unwikified, you simply produce edit wars as users of different formats keep changing dates in articles to their preferred format. (To avoid that, the preference command was introduced, along with the requirement to wikify all dates to make it work.)

Also reign was wikified because not everyone knows what a reign is. So the link was put in to allow people unsure as to what it means to go to a page that explains what a reign is. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 29 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Please clean up the irrelevant message at Image talk:Ireland flag large.png. Apparently you clicked on the preceding flag image instead of the Talk link. And the Style page which seems to be relevant is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). (SEWilco 30 June 2005 01:04 (UTC))

I have voted to undelete Edip Yuksel

Thanks for your note. See my comments at article undelete page. Hope we can work together on this, I am familiar with his work. BrandonYusufToropov 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. BrandonYusufToropov 30 June 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Edip article deletion

ARTICLE IS DELETED?? Uh oh, Edip/Khizar won't like this. Just though I'd make you aware.:) --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 21:53 (UTC)

The removal of the article “Brin”

I do agree. I understand that this article is non-encyclopedic, it has nothing to do in Wikipedia. --kjetil_r June 30, 2005 23:07 (UTC)

VfD

Yeah, in my rush to process obvious deletes, I saw comments outside the bounds. I initial assumed it to be an error by the processing admin, but when I clicked the article I figured otherwise. However, since the VfD discussion is closed and that article is now irrelevant, and since it was deleted with prejudice, then I don't think there's too much of a problem with it. However, since there is likely to be a VfU proceeding, then that VfD article may be cited, so I should restore it. Thanks for keeping an eye out, and thanks for your message. --Golbez July 1, 2005 02:36 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks, MikeJ9919, for the encouraging words on my RfA! I intend to do my best with my new responsibilities, and I appreciate the vote of confidence. --Spangineer (háblame) July 4, 2005 03:56 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel

Just voted at VfD -- will check in and pitch in on article cleanup later today, Godwilling. Thanks for the note. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Edits on Edip Yuksel

Looks good to me -- you are a good deal more willing than I to include quotes and so forth. :) I don't know what the status of the translation MS is. I imagine Edip will provide status and examples for this project on talk page... BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

When is Edip Yuksel VfD result final?

Rookie question. Sorry.

Khizar wants to take VfD box out. What think? BrandonYusufToropov 13:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

I just got a feeling that maybe the additions were done because they have a proxy or program or something that automatically converts all links to that format. So I removed them and put in the changes; if they continue, I'll leave him a note to disable it, if he is running one. So now we can discuss the content. --Golbez 18:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jihad

Inasmuch as I respect your opinion on such matters, can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Justice

Hi Mike,

I have removed John Roberts, Jr. from the table of Chief Justices; a mention of the nominee in the article is appropriate, but not the table. This is especially true because of the John Rutledge problem -- he was appointed by Pres. Washington in a Congressional recess, and scholars don't even all agree that he should be on the table. Of course, it is also important to respect the Senate's role in the confirmation process. I'm fairly certain he'll be on the table by Oct., but it is best to wait. Xoloz 19:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Cleveland v. David B. Hill

What was your source for the role that Senatorial courtesy played in Hill's ability to defeat Cleveland's first two nominations? I've seen varying and incomplete summaries. I'm particularly interested because I've decided to be the first and only Wheeler Hazard Peckham specialist in the world. Thanks, Postdlf 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation link repair

Hello. I wonder if I can persuade you to write [[origin (mathematics)|origin]] instead of [[Origin (mathematics)|origin]]? The problem is that it leads newbies to think it's necessary to use a capital letter, and then they do the same in visible text—"He was attacked by a large Dog." Michael Hardy 00:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.

Thanks! --evrik 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Cold War

Thanks for letting me know about this article. I've made one change that should make it sound less POV. — Natha n ^(talk) 05:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the rest of it after I've had some sleep. Thanks :) — Natha n ^(talk) 05:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I certainy don't. Misread it myself.. Linking to Spike TV now, since they seem to have melded both TNNs with that. DrWho42 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the vandalism reversion. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 19:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the possibility that both users, Yaron1 and Gen99, could very well might be the same person (or not too far therefrom..)... But it's an inchoate theory based on merely only user contributions, and as Sherlock states: "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.".

Still, something to keep an eye on till further evidence arrives.. He recently salvaged and re-attached his three paragraphs, by-the-way and just to let you know.

DrWho42 08:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. But let it be noted that Jimbo's "yank it" works best when the author of unencyclopedic text is not around. AvB ÷ talk 00:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSP

Hello. Regarding the suspected sock puppet cose of Yaron1: Just like to update you on it, and that I have created a checkuser to be performed on both accounts. You might like to comment on the request for checkuser page, but no additional comment is actually required from you. Thanks. Iolakana|^(talk) 15:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Gail Mangum

I see that you've changed you vote to Keep in theWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crystal_Gail_Mangum as you cite some of my postings/precedences. Though my Wiki-knowledge is less than yours and several others on CGM pages, I learned something today: that you (and probably others) have the integrity and courage to change your mind and publicly alter your opinion. Until today, I thought that was impossible. Bravo. --Robertkeller 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MikeJ9919! 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. Prodego ^talk 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NorseStar

Thank you very much for reverting the vandalism on my pages. NorseStar is a bit cross because I speedied something he wrote; I've decided to try welcoming him to Wikipedia and explain my action before I use the banhammer. So yes, I'll take it from here. Thanks again, SCZenz 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Science (TV series)

A pity, really. I'm staying out of it in terms of editing articles for now but will be keeping an eye on this editor. Let's hope he'll either learn to appreciate NOR or keep his WP activities down. If not, he's heading for the door. AvB ÷ talk 07:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Temporal Cold War

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Temporal Cold War. 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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporal Cold War (2 nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Four Diamonds Fund

The article Four Diamonds Fund has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A nice charity for sure, but I don't see any evidence of independent reliable sources to establish notability

While all 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. GrapedApe (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MikeJ9919. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MikeJ9919. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Four Diamonds Fund for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Four Diamonds Fund is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Diamonds Fund until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]