User talk:DeknMike

DeknMike is taking a break in editing.

old discussion is on the Archive page.

• Too few are interested in scholarship; the rest only want to collectively bully opposition to their preconceived notions. Prayers for their souls are in order. --DeknMike (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ...yeah, once in a while, clear mistakes are made. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Medical foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foundation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by

independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability

of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

It's still heavily influenced by the company and structured like it is from their website. Needs more outside sources. Remove bias statements such as "OMRF has a reputation as a great place to work"

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  will be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeknMike! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the exchange at Teahouse, I see you have already been cautioned that the proper path is to revise the existing article rather than create anew article as a replacement. Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation already has serious problems, in the the majority of the references to the OMRF website. Article content should rest on what independent sources state about a topic, not what the topic says about itself. Your draft is worse, as you have added more OMRF references, and have added far more detail than what belongs in an article of this nature. Note that for medical research sites such as Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, past and current faculty are named only if there are existing Wikipedia articles about them. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was drafting the edit - and it was clearly marked as an edit to the existing page - on my own sandbox. Liance moved the page, not me. And while 14 of the 82 references are directly from the Foundation, 7 of those are pre-existing links to content I didn't add. For the others, I intentionally scoured the web for verifying external sources, and worked to limit the number of those that looked too much like a copied press release. DeknMike (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your explaining how your effort got to draft status. David notMD (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeknMike! You created a thread called Survey by neutral national organization at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

The article David A. Rausch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:NACADEMIC

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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 page 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

Please do not cast them. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is bad enough, but your clearly POV edit warring is blockable

It's Valjean that repeatedly quashes any attempt to remove anything that disputes a POV against the movie. It's a MOVIE, expressing an opinion. Let's get the facts straight and then highlight the various points of view. DeknMike (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a MOVIE that purports to present FACTS. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2000 Mules shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still appear to be edit warring and POV pushing on this article and I suggest you stop making edits altogether and discuss them on the talk page first. You don't need to violate 3 reverts to be blocked for edit warring. Slow burning edit wars are just as bad and blockable. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content that is factual is not an 'edit war'. Should the article have only one point of view while discarding neitral information? DeknMike (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factual is what independent reliable sources say. Familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And making judgements about the veracity of an opinion is a POV. What's false about posting from science journals and movie revenues? DeknMike (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peninsula Youth Orchestra, Newport News,VA 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/Peninsula Youth Orchestra, Newport News,VA 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 until the discussion has finished.